Short version … yes Ethilrist, years. The same basic schtick over and over again, finding new people to engage with, and usually with the same strawman arguments pretty much ignoring all arguments actually made.
It’s boring.
And whether or not the precise argument he makes each time is explicitly racist or not, the apparent obsession with making the same argument over and over again is hard to explain without evoking racist perspectives.
Bottom line for me, FWIW, is that I couldn’t give a shit if there is some element of genetic predisposition to population wide means and Sds and various axes of intelligence (I am open to the possibility that there is). The first order of business would remain addressing the unequitable complex social and cultural factors that likely swamp everything else (and such is much more than SES level) so that everyone is able to more closely reach whatever their potential is.
they should as there is not one “typical” hair texture in Africa.
of course, and the variations are multiple within the africans.
False. Here we see again the half -knowledge and “popular (mis) understanding” of the genetics that leads to false conclusions.
the African populations which have lived long in the high malaria zones are. As are certain non african populations (with different expressions) which had long endemic exposure to the malaria. the african populations - yes in the sub-saharan africa - that did not have this, are not “most susceptible”
Not blacks, not africans, some sub-sets of them.
yes and the genetics that are more complicated and not what you think they are. It is simplistic and under-information, and among some an idelogical tendency that lead to agreement with the pedant.
Sometimes with the ethnicities as cultural defines them sometimes not. the genetic population group is not a great synonym to the western races idea.
*Yet when Mr. Pedant suggests that there may be a genetic reason why Kenya tends to produce excellent runners, he’s accused of racism. * :smack:
it is political correctness that forbids describing an idea by its common noun, that meets precisely the dictionary definition " a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority"
describing reality objectively of course means not being the politically correct and avoiding a word because it has the political meaning in the USA… to avoid the word racist for things that meet the dictionary definition, it is political correctness.
it is not political correctness that discards the ideas of the pedant as non scientific and based on more the north american presuppsitions of popular genetics than the science and data (as you demonstrate ironcially in making declarations that are not in fact supported by the science and based on the unscientific ideas).
Yes, the ideological tendency of the American cultural conservative that is resisting for decade after decade the clear lessons of the actual genetic sciences that say their traditional ideas of race have no good foundation at all.
If there is a phenotypical expression of a genotypic variation that causes hair to be reliably different, then we can certainly acknowledge that it’s possible another phenotypical expression of a genotypic variation might cause better running ability.
It’s not a case of the laws of biology or the physical constraints of the universe being violated, after all.
And the political correctness that is objecting to a plain word being used because this political tendency gets its feeling hurts when factual expressions that meet this dictionary definition are blandly labeled.
Ironical of course you meant in ignorance something else, but this is the ideological blindness.
My favorite piece of Chief Pedant rhetoric is his fully supporting AA for black people (and presumably other low scoring minorities) because left to the merit rewarding free market they wouldn’t be represented at all, nor will they ever be. In a pluralistic society it’s important to include everyone, yada yada social harmony, so AA must stay even if it crowds out capable Asians, Jews, whites, etc. I don’t know if he really believes that or he just uses it to make liberals mad, but it’s wonderfully crafted. Golf claps all around.
They have, for years and years. he retreats to hand waving and gross misuse of statistical phrases and concepts so as to throw up the smoke screen and of course the continued reasseration of facts shown to be false like the population isolation time frames of the sub saharan populations.
it is not obvious but in the threads he baldly asserts that any testing difference has to be genetic (although by ad hoc reasoning that changes in context) and waives away any non-biological factor. It is the a priori argument.
it is wrong however to dismiss the genetic difference in intelligence, it is of course there. The question is not that, but the coherence, even the logical basis, of the analysis for the large and genetically very diverse popualtions that are labeled ‘black.’ Taking the heterogenous and not coherent populatoins and making the broad assertions, this is politics, it is not science.
Look, what you’re saying isn’t that he’s not racist, it’s that racists might theoretically be right. Whether he’s right or wrong, claiming that one race is inferior to another is what it means to be a racist.
In theory, it’s possible that martians working for the Cuban mob shot JFK. Allowing that remote possibility doesn’t mean it’s wrong to call someone making that claim a conspiracy theorist; it just allows that conspiracy theorists might be right.
You have wounded me sirrah, with your stunning riposte.
Hell yes he can “paragraph”. Entirely too much “paragraph”. Is this a quantity equates quality calculation? If so, I must not-so-humbly disagree with your assessment baseline.
Well, the target of your ire may or may not be engaged in “racist pedantry”; however, your rather odd method of, let’s call it writing in English leaves a lot to be desired. You’re evidently aware of both the space key and the return/enter key, but you do not seem to be aware that they are not interchangeable.
Let’s say that he’s right, and it turns out that there is a genetic component to intelligence and that is may be more prevalent in Race A than Race B, would that by “racist”? If so, you’d be calling Nature racist. And that doesn’t make any sense. The existence of racial differences doesn’t equate to people pointing them out being racism.
I’m not so sure about that. If I were to say that East Asians are generally inferior to Caucasians and Blacks at growing beards, would that be racist?
I think that in order be a racist, you need to harbor some negative emotions towards people of given race, or you need to judge someone based on their race alone, rather then their personal characteristics.
“Racist” has a negative connotation to it such that it can’t just apply to someone who is stating facts.
Beards and sprinting ability aren’t intelligence. Intelligence really is different, just like greediness or trustworthiness. It doesn’t matter if someone thinks they have good data that Jews are actually greedier than others – it’s still bigoted to say “Jews are inherently greedier due to genetics”. It doesn’t matter if someone thinks they have good data that black people are less intelligent – it’s still racist, in my mind, to say “black people are inherently inferior in intelligence due to genetics”.
I don’t see how greediness for Jews is different than intelligence for black people.
This argument is based on a belief that intelligence is a matter of character, with NO basis in genetics. Is that position something you really want to try to defend?
Hey, dumb fuck. Sickle cell is not limited to Africans. And if you could bother yourself to take thirty seconds and read the Wiki article on sickle cell, you would know that. Maybe you can skip your next Klan rally and read it.
And that is not the extent of the claims that Pedant. You’re a racist asshole defending another racist asshole. And you’re an ignorant motherfucker lecturing people about topics you don’t understand. Go fuck yourself.
I know we’ve had this discussion before… how do you make the distinction? What if it’s a Nazi saying Jews are inherently greedier? A hooded KKK’er saying blacks are dumber? A researcher, who may or may not have been involved with white supremacist groups in the past, saying black people are inherently more violent and less intelligent? A brain doctor who says that black people have inferior brains?
In my mind, all these claims are inherently racist. It doesn’t matter who says it, and it doesn’t matter why they say it. Every single racist thinks they have good data and good reason to be racist, whether or not they admit to themselves that they are racist.
You’ve got to be fucking kidding. All you’re doing here is taking other negative stereotypes that have been assigned to people in the past and trying to say that, well, if it’s a negative perception of a group, it must necessarily be a similar stereotype with zero basis in nature.
So, do you hold that intelligence has absolutely no component?