I would add to that list: think they are better than someone of another race simply because of their race.
Excellent posts, MaxTheVool and John Mace.
And iiandyiiii. 
That was funny.
Maybe one day. I’m pulling for you. But it’s knot like I haven’t given you enough clues!! 
What I find amazing is that people continuously put on ahistorical blinders for the mere chance to rationalize shoddy racialist reasoning. It’s like the belief that if one simply picks the nuts out of shit, you’ll make good PBandJ’s.
Max, if you seriously think its evidence that’s driving racialists to preach that blacks are genetically intellectually inferior (putting aside the flawed nature of using a selection of ‘IQ tests, SAT scores, college graduation rates, etc’ as evidence of racial genetics) tell me why is it that these racists also preach to the lack of moral value of blacks? Yes, very much like Jews are greedy racialists REALLY DO preach that blacks are morally corrupt on a whole host of behavioural traits (this is in addition to other so called racial traits). I’ll just assume that like the man who picks nuts out of shit, you picked intelligence out the racialism list.
The key to evaluating the legitimacy of this [del]cherry[/del] nut-picked claim of a genetic racial hierarchy of intelligence would be to ask yourself: How much of the claim’s validity rests on my personal speculation, mental cooperation, or goodwill? Honestly. How far do you need to carry the water for those racialists? As it turns out [ul]
[li]you are required to basically ignore the teachings of a large swath of the scientific community[/li][li]racialists can’t group ‘blacks’ as a cohesive genetic population (nor justify the division of humanity into race blocks)[/li][li]racialists can’t identify the genetic under-pinning of poorly understood complex behavioural traits (like cognitive ability, aggressiveness, impulsiveness, ‘ability to even drive a stable, law-abiding culture,’ etc)[/li][li]racialists can’t link the above nameless genes to the ‘black race’[/li][/ul]
So lacking any proof of their ideas, instead, racialists rely on the listeners sheer willingness to play along; namely that a choice selection of behavioural test results, amounts to a genetic smoking gun for black mental inferiority. Heh, this just reminds me of the long list of bullshit racialist claims made on the bases of head bumps/skull measurements/historical ignorace/etc and race theory still continues to this day. Bullshit racist speculation isn’t benign, it is harmful and unethical.
American education policies and the questions of the social discrimination is a question of the biological science of genetics? Ah, how interesting.
thank you, from you this is a very kind compliment.
that is true, I do not memorize the names of american university presidents. Or the writers of educsation policy in the america which also does not interest me.
they are indeed educated, and one is a lawyer and the other was an economist of labor issues. And they both were university presidents. And they wrote a book about the education policy.
Hmmm… yes I can see how you in particular might get confused and not be able to make a difference between this subject and the subject of the population genetics and the structuring of the populations or the analysis of the genetical groupings…
It is a book about the policy and theory of education. This is wonderful. I am sure it has a long bibliography and that has many things that uses long words that are impressive.
Ah you mean to pretend to be smarter than you. I would never aspire to make such a pretension as it would be insulting.
Here’s my problem with that formulation: “Racist” is a bad word. It should be a bad word. People who are racist by the commonly-accepted definition are bad people who make the world worse.
At the same time, as far as I can tell, it is not established settled fact one way or the other whether there is a genetic link between “race” and intelligence. Most reasonable people seem to be skeptical, and tend to view the motives of those who are arguing for such a link with great suspicion (which I think is reasonable). But I don’t think it’s accurate to say “it has been proven that there is NO such link, period, paragraph, end of discussion”. So someone comes along and make some claim that is maybe one small but precise and measurable data point relating to this issue, and attempts to debate it in (apparent) good faith. I think it behooves us to debate any such issue fairly and objectively… measure the data, possibly come to a conclusion, etc. That’s what fighting ignorance is.
But if the “believing that there is any meaningful difference between races is RACISM” definition is in play, then that looms unavoidably over the above debate, because if you come to the conclusion that X is true, then suddenly you are a RACIST. So you’re basically saying “hey, come over here and debate proposition X. We’re ignorance fighters, so we want you just to examine the data, purely the data, use your best scientific methodology. So, do you think (a) X is true, or (b) X is false, or (c) we can’t determine what X is? Now, be as fair and objective as possible. Oh, and also, if you come to conclusion (a), then YOU ARE A RACIST. OK, go!”.
This is one of the reasons I try not to use the word to describe posters, but rather assertions. I think I’ve said fairly frequently something like “what you said is racist”, but I’ve very rarely (or never) said “you are racist”.
I agree. I think this is compatible with calling such claims racist if I deem them to be so. Here’s an example of an assertion I would probably call racist: “black people are inherently inferior in intelligence, on average, due to the genetics of Africa”. Here’s an assertion that I probably would not call racist: “the test score gap between self-identified black and white students may be at least partially explained by some genetic factors”. The first talks about perhaps the most fundamentally human characteristic (intelligence), and in a way that mirrors the justification for some of the worst oppression in human history. The second does not – ‘test score performance’ is not some fundamental human characteristic, and there has been much less (if any) oppression historically based on test scores. I would still call the second assertion ‘wrong’ unless some groundbreaking new evidence was put forward, but I don’t think I would call it racist.
But other people might find it racist, and I don’t think I would criticize them for saying so. I am not the arbiter for all things racist and not racist; I only call things that seem to me to be racist as such.
I don’t think it’s like that. Research away, and report your findings. But be careful with your language – if you say something racist, it will get called out. If you say something racist and your methods or data are faulty, it will get called out in triple or more. Yes, that means some researchers on these topics will feel they need to tread lightly. Considering the history of the last few centuries, that’s probably a good and positive thing.
OK, fair enough. People with none of the 10 genes (group A) have an IQ of XXX and people with at least 1 of the 10 genes (group B) have an IQ of X.
Now the two populations mix, and we end up with a mixed population with some combination of the genes from group A and group B. What’s the average IQ of the mixed group?
When I worked at an animal shelter, I got a call once from a woman who wanted to spay her cat. The conversation went something like this:
Something about this discussion of genetics calls the story to mind.
Ceci n’est pas une pipe, Max. The picture is not the thing, the word is not the referent.
“Racism” is not a bad word. Racism is a bad ideology. “Racism” is an accurate word to refer to a bad ideology.
Botulism isn’t a bad word either. It’s just a word that refers to a bad thing. If some people want to convince me that botulism is fine as long as I’m injecting the toxin it produces into my face, they shouldn’t start by objecting to the word; they should start by explaining why botulism isn’t such a bad thing at all.
You and others are mistaking the condemnation racism receives for condemnation that the word “racism” receives. If a person doesn’t like being called a racist, they should object that their beliefs don’t match the word’s meaning, or they should change their beliefs such that they don’t match the word’s meaning. Alternatively, they may explain why racism is no worse than injecting nerve toxins into my face.
Attacking a perfectly cromulent word is as foolish as stuffing tobacco into the Treachery of Images.
Then we are in agreement. But I feel like some people are defining racism in a way that does not allow for that distinction. To quote FXMastermind: “To even think a subset of humans could be different, in any way, because of genetic differences, that is the basis of racism.”
Nobody on earth defines racism that way. Like literally zero people.
Edit: to be clear, I think FX is not terribly bright and has not thought through his supposed definition. According to his definition, if I think men [a subset of humans] tend to grow more facial hair [a difference] because of their Y chromosome [a genetic difference], that’d be racist. And nobody thinks that.
Fair point, I spoke imprecisely. “Racism” is certainly not a “bad word” in the sense that the N-word or the C-word or the F-word is.
Except of course the word doesn’t have a precise and rigorous and agreed upon meaning. Is “the test score gap between self-identified black and white students may be at least partially explained by some genetic factors” a racist statement?
I claim that calling that statement “racist” is counterproductive… it is greatly at odds with the commonly understood and used meaning of the term, and it potentially poisons the debate by demonizing one of the positions. If you believe that proposition is false and can be defeated, then defeat it, don’t make it taboo.
It’s like if we were having a debate about whether the age of consent should be 15 or 16, and people kept referring to those in favor of 15 as “pedophiles”.
It’s not actually that simple at all of course. Racism is a very very old state of mind. Hell, forget about the old testament, the caste system in India, and the treatment of women, for most of history, by all kinds of social orders, ethnic groups and such, shows that human nature is sort of rooted in racism.
The very idea that traits are passed on by genetics, not culture, not upbringing, but something in the very nature of humankind, in the code, is a real problem. It doesn’t help that many of the world’s religions are rooted in it.
What do you mean by “traits” here? Is “height” not a trait? Is “susceptibility to some particular form of cancer” not a trait?
I’m guessing that you are trying to limit your statement to personality/intelligence traits, is that in fact the case?
No.
Totally. Someone saw my pale-skinned wife and my pale-skinned self walking with my pale-skinned daughter down the street, and they were like, “Is that your daughter?” and I was like, “RACIST!”
Check out the breeding experiment the Russians did. Videos here.
They didn’t just breed for tame, they also bred the other way, as an experiment.
Traits are passed on through the code. We don’t know all the secrets, but we do know many things are passed on. It’s that we know for a fact that characteristics, both behavior as well as physical and so forth, are in our genes, that makes the subject so incredibly complex. We just don’t know that much. Yet.
But everybody knows that some things are in our genes.