Let's Have a Frank Discussion on Race

[Chen019]

@New_Deal_Democrat

The reason the theories of J. Philippe Rushton, Charles Murray, Arthur R. Jensen and others are so devastating to the agendas of racial egalitarians is because they are so plausible. They compose easily understandable explanations of racial differences that nearly everyone knows exist. That is why the racial egalitarians suppress these ideas when they can, and ridicule them when they have to.

Also, it is not true that it is easy for these men to get funding. I cannot document this, but I am reasonably certain that those who are known to agree have a difficult time getting academic positions with the social science departments in most colleges and universities.

It is pretty well known that is the case in terms of funding and getting academic positions. If you read Steven Pinker’s ‘The Blank Slate’ you’ll see there was widespread hostility to theories that human behaviour and individual differences had a genetic basis. Thomas Bouchard struggled to get funding for his study of identical twins reared apart. And that was simply to look at the influence of genes on personality, not race or gender differences.

Linda Gottfredson discusses the difficulties she had with her own university over unpopular research in this interview. http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2007gottfredsoninterview.pdf

[Ibn_Warraq]

@New_Deal_Democrat

Also, it is not true that it is easy for these men to get funding. I cannot document this, but I am reasonably certain that those who are known to agree have a difficult time getting academic positions with the social science departments in most colleges and universities.

As opposed to people who claim that cigarettes don’t cause cancer or that there’s no link between HIV and AIDS. They never have any problem getting academic positions and they’re not viewed as cranks.

[tomndebb]

@New_Deal_Democrat

The reason the theories of J. Philippe Rushton, Charles Murray, Arthur R. Jensen and others are so devastating to the agendas of racial egalitarians is because they are so plausible. They compose easily understandable explanations of racial differences that nearly everyone knows exist. That is why the racial egalitarians suppress these ideas when they can, and ridicule them when they have to.

Also, it is not true that it is easy for these men to get funding. I cannot document this, but I am reasonably certain that those who are known to agree have a difficult time getting academic positions with the social science departments in most colleges and universities.

Last to first: Jensen and Rushton have no trouble getting academic funding and Murray is neither an academic nor a scientist, but still finds funding for his “work.”

Regardless how “plausible” you find their stuff, Rushton is a proven liar (as I demonstrated a couple of days ago), and Murray’s sole claim to fame has been debunked. None of the people whom you are admiring have ever had a publication suppressed, so your other claim also lacks merit.

Basically, you are posting stuff that is simply at odds with reality.

[Ibn_Warraq]

@tomndebb

Last to first: Jensen and Rushton have no trouble getting academic funding and Murray is neither an academic nor a scientist, but still finds funding for his “work.”

Regardless how “plausible” you find their stuff, Rushton is a proven liar (as I demonstrated a couple of days ago), and Murray’s sole claim to fame has been debunked. None of the people whom you are admiring have ever had a publication suppressed, so your other claim also lacks merit.

Basically, you are posting stuff that is simply at odds with reality.

Murray is also a member of the American Enterprise Institute, one of the more prominent think-tanks in the US.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@New_Deal_Democrat

An intriguing explanation of how these differences evolved can be found in The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution, by by Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending. The website for this book can be found here:
http://the10000yearexplosion.com/

Wow, its like you’re channeling Chen 019

[GIGObuster]

@Ibn_Warraq

Murray is also a member of the American Enterprise Institute, one of the more prominent think-tanks in the US.

You mean the Anti-Science Exxon/Mobil-funded American Enterprise Institute.

http://climateprogress.org/2008/10/29/the-american-enterprise-institute-still-crazy-with-denial-and-delay-after-all-these-years/

http://climateprogress.org/2011/02/18/american-enterprise-institute-aei-european-attacks-on-clean-energy-jobs/

http://money.cnn.com/2007/02/02/news/companies/exxon_science/index.htm

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Ibn_Warraq

Murray is also a member of the American Enterprise Institute, one of the more prominent think-tanks in the US.

They recently had a an AEI event for him. He’s got a new book coming out and he seemed to stay away from racial issues and focus on differences within the white population. It was decidedly conservative but he stayed away from the “blacks are poor because they’re stupid” stuff.

[Ibn_Warraq]

@GIGObuster

You mean the Anti-Science Exxon/Mobil-funded American Enterprise Institute.

http://climateprogress.org/2008/10/29/the-american-enterprise-institute-still-crazy-with-denial-and-delay-after-all-these-years/

http://climateprogress.org/2011/02/18/american-enterprise-institute-aei-european-attacks-on-clean-energy-jobs/

http://money.cnn.com/2007/02/02/news/companies/exxon_science/index.htm

I’m not defending them, merely noting that they are quite prominent which all your links back up.

[GIGObuster]

@Ibn_Warraq

I’m not defending them, merely noting that they are quite prominent which all your links back up.

The fact that they are prominent and they prop up anti-science should be noted also.

[A_Forest_Lady]

@FinnAgain

Bulllllllshit.
There are any number of ethnic/racial/sexual/whatever slurs in this world, and the word “nigger” is not some magical word that cannot be discussed except by shielding the actual letters in it. If people are so sensitive that they get upset by the mere mention of the word while it’s not being used as a slur, then the person who’s pointing out the word that’s used is not in fact being insensitive. Nor is it particularly crass or crude to not endlessly dance around the actual word. “Nigger”, “kyke”, “spic”, whatever, they’re all bad words that should absoluteness never be used to describe a person. But we don’t have to avert our eyes and swoon, either, when someone else points out the facts as to what slur was used.

“He called her… the K— word!”
“Hunh, what? You mean he called her a kyke? If that’s what you mean then yeah, that’s pretty disgusting.”
“You’re being racist. Also you’re crass, crude and insensitive.”

And Dick Armey did call Barney Frank a fag. That’s the word he used.
Why is it wrong to point that out while condemning it? Should we say “Dick Armey called Barney Frank a… bad homosexual person?”
For serious?

I’ve thought about what you are saying. It is odd that “nigger” is virtually the only word that is utterly taboo in the United States. Schools have banned the book Huck Finn because of it. It’s really a textbook example of a society-wide “knee-jerk reaction” to a word that yes, is offensive, but *does *exist.