Well for one thing, people have already chosen to see the movie or already have an interest in it.
Here, you’re trying to generate interest in something that no one has any interest in, and then you’re being a fucking asshole about the fact that no one is interested.
No, it’s no different from my dismissing the opinion of someone about a movie who talks about how they don’t like the actors or the director or whatever, but is not going to see the movie.
The only thing worse than a slack-jawed, fish-brained, drooling racist piece of shit is a fucking lightweight, know-nothing, wannabe slack-jawed fish-brained, drooling racist piece of shit who, having nothing new to contribute (even current bigoted morons aren’t lining up behind Murray any more, which is why he’s so sad), drags out a 20 year old piece of crap and wants to “discuss” it even though s/he apparently can’t say anything intelligible about it him/herself. Instead, s/he wants others to do the work of listening to it (which there’s no evidence the OP has bothered to do), and start the argument again from some time before his/her fellow pieces of shit lost it two decades ago. Sorry: no do-overs for the fish-brains.
Even his/her fellow bigots aren’t discussing this tripe any more–why is anyone here giving the OP a thought?
I don’t know what “evidence” would satisfy you, but I always listen to every episode of Sam Harris’s podcast in its entirety. When a new episode drops, I drop any other podcast I’m listening to and go straight to Sam.
The concept of race and the African slave trade predates the arrival of Europeans to America by centuries.
Where are you getting this “alternative facts”? :dubious:
FYI, the Arab slave traders that were there a thousand years before people in the Americas thought up of rationalizations for their slave trade referred to Africans as blacks.
Well why don’t you summarize? Save us the trouble, and show that you understood the cogent points from what you heard, and actually push the discussion forwards.
Never mind. You’re a fucking moron, and this is incredibly stupid.
Look, it might be true that we can treat “white” as a race. Yeah, it’s true that your average European is more closely related to other Europeans than they are to Africans. But it’s not true that your average African is more closely related to other Africans than they are to Europeans. Africa is more diverse genetically than the entire rest of the world combined, and so if “white” and “asian” are races, then Africa has to contain at least a dozen races, not one.
The thing about race and the slave trade is that European slave traders didn’t enslave Africans because they were racist against Africans. That came much later. They enslaved Africans because Africans weren’t Christians. But the problem then comes when your slaves convert to Christianity, what are you supposed to do now, free them? That’s crazy talk! So there has to be some other reason why it’s OK to enslave them, and so racism was invented. Of course Islamic slavery often worked the same way, it was OK for Muslims to enslave Christians and pagans.
Yeah, people have noted for thousands of years that people from sub-saharan Africa tend to have dark skin. Good for you for noticing that. But that difference wasn’t significant. We don’t have records of Romans thinking that sub-Saharan Africans were naturally stupid and made good slaves. That explanation was made up in the 1700s, and still continues to be believed by some people even today, and sometimes they write books about it.
Hmm. Is that fish brain a function of genetics or the environment?
Yes, I said much the same upthread.
I’m not however seeing the leap in modern times between “group X has a lower average IQ” and “it’s okay to mistreat people or enslave them if they have lower IQs”. If this is remotely how people feel nowadays, why do I not see people hooking those with Downs Syndrome up to rickshaws and whipping them to spur them on faster? My impression is that since the late 20th century, there has been a strong social norm requiring us to be tenderhearted toward those with intellectual deficits, and expending extra resources on their education (fortunately for my family, as my wife is a “SpEd” teacher). Even when skinflint “small government” types get power, programs for the intellectually disabled tend to escape the budget knife (note that the SCOTUS just ruled 9-0, amazingly, that school districts must provide more robust funding for education of kids with autism).
Let’s go to the quarry and throw stuff down there! You respond to my post with an attack! Hilarious! I bet you don’t even see how that proved what I wrote to be accurate (ya know, like how what I wrote on March 2, 2016 was accurate).
That is definitely something you like to say. Does anyone know why, or enjoy the non sequitur quirk? Not sure.
Yes, you predicted in March that Trump would win. Then in, what, September? you announced you had changed your mind, and that he would lose. After the election, you declared that the earlier prediction was the one that counted after all. (Pro tip: this will not work out the way you want it to, if you make the same assumption when drafting multiple versions of your last will and testament.)
Beats the hell out of me; I can’t recall ever having opened such a thread. I never got the feeling from the titles of such threads that they amounted to an attempt to give us an assignment (regardless of how easy or difficult such an assignment might be to complete). :dubious:[sup]2[/sup]
I don’t have the technical chops to make a link to another forum when I’m on my tablet, sorry.
BUT, if you go to site you linked to in your OP, it shouldn’t be too hard to find the tab labeled “forums.” I trust you can find your way from there.
To be candid, I had not read your riposte until about twenty minutes ago. I have now responded to it.
If you think that’s absurd, shall we talk about how ridiculous it is that your behavior inspired me to think it advisable?
A topic of fierce debate since Professor Lovecraft delivered his monograph from Innsmouth…
I’m glad Sam Harris has made things simpler for me.
Up to now, I’ve had friends link comments by him and I’ve had to explain that he’s one of those scientists who goes way out of his area of expertise and takes strong opinions about things he has no understanding of*. And that often those opinions are of the racist flavor.
Now I can just mention this “discussion” and we’re done.
One only has to look at the main proponents of this hypothesis, and what they advocate – most people who advocate for this idea, that black people are inherently intellectually inferior, are white nationalists/supremacists. What online forum has the most discussion about the topic, and most agreement that it’s true? Stormfront. What subreddits? Banned ones like r/coontown and r/altright.
No different, broadly, then the slavery-justifiers and segregationists of past decades and centuries.
We don’t have to hypothesize what America would be like if most people accepted this idea – we know what would happen, since it was the case for most of American history. Humans don’t generally treat other groups well if they think they’re inferior.
And aside from the monstrosities that occur from acceptance of the idea, it’s just bad science. We don’t know the genes for high and low intelligence, much less their prevalence in various groups. Asserting that outcomes now just so happen to reflect some genetic hierarchy of intelligence, when outcomes have been all over the map through human history, is just ridiculous. There’s nothing special about now.
I’ll note, SlackerInc, that you didn’t respond to my long post #59.
Yes, as I’ve said on the Dope before, knowing what genes are responsible for intelligence? That’s useful.
Studying some small population that for some reason has a high IQ? Potentially useful, because it might help us find the genes.
But making broad brush statements about “races”? Notsomuch.
You’re talking graphs with a huge amount of variance within a group, and potentially, maybe, a tiny difference on average.
And yet you have so many guys rattling on about how we MUST study this. Why?
It’s because they want to indulge their urge to generalize. They want to think “I must be smarter than that guy, because he’s black”. And treat humans (who are so alike scientists think our species must have had a population bottleneck) like different species.
There’s a falsehood and a false and telling assumption here.
The falsehood is that race predates American slavery. That’s incorrect. The word existed, but it meant something like nation or language speakers. It didn’t refer to continental origin. The idea of 3 or 4 races was distinctly eighteenth century.
The telling assumption is that you think the idea of a black race must have coincided with black slavery. The reality is that slavers didn’t have to invent racism until the rights of white indentured servants became a problem, which post-dated transatlantic slavery by a century or so.
I’m someone who argues against the glibness of the term “white privilege”, but if someone is biased against you because of perceived characteristics, the bias is real even if the characteristics are not. I just don’t call this relative lack of bias “privilege” because racism doesn’t benefit anyone. Even white people would be better if it didn’t exist, so it’s a dubious “privilege” to be hurt even if it is less than anyone else.
This kitty has some advice for you. The fact that a biological category does not exist does not mean that a social category doesn’t exist.
