This is the Pit - I’m not trying to have a *debate *with the racist motherfucker, I’m just here to call him a racist motherfucker.
If that happens to spur the inbred idiot on to go to some trouble to prove me “wrong”, so much the funnier. Because any sane person would have seen I was just mocking him right from the start. I mean, nobody *seriously *thinks I think he’s a Klan member, FFS.
Even the Klan has standards, after all.
It is evidence albeit weak. What the resident troll seems to be strawmanning is the belief that it is proof which it is not.
No, there isn’t. I’ve seen the original on twitter. The argument is that thinking it’s a call for genocide is laughable. It’s a dismissive tweet, aimed ironically at sexist bros, IIRC. (The problem was she was referencing a reddit thread, which I didn’t bother searching for).
Great, then show me 1 example of a racist statement made by Jeong from this thread, which includes the paragraph before and the paragraph after. With links. You know, in context. It’s easy, right?
All I see is bad faith snippets.
What I’ve asked for is much less. I want to see a link to a particular tweet that you claim is racist. Then we can discuss context. So far you have nothing.
I’m not doing whataboutism here. I’m showing what an actual substantiated allegation of racism looks like. Here is Media Matters takedown of Bill O’Reilly. It shows quotes in context, as opposed to the bad faith nonsense directed at Jeong. https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2017/03/28/bill-o-reilly-s-history-racism/215845
So, self-confessed patronizing racist who justifies it with an analogy about how some shouldn’t be trusted to make their own decisions?
That’s mighty white of you.
Not this white folk. If you voted for Trump you tolerate a vicious kind of racism, not to mention sexual violence against women. And that’s just for starters.
How can it be irrelevant when the specific bee in your bonnet was that my referencing what you keep calling “pseudoscience” (never mind the response to that survey at an academic conference, or that even the scientists who wrote in Vox acknowledged that many of their peers hold views closer to Murray’s than to theirs) risks provoking future Nazi atrocities? You’re all over the map here.
All we have to do is look at American history. For most of American history, the widely accepted view of black people was of inherent intellectual inferiority, and this was used to justify monstrosities. And you want to go back to this formerly widely (and officially) accepted view.
No thanks, and fuck you for continuing to do so. And fuck the very small percentage of professionals like Murray who ignore good science and embrace bad science in the cause of white supremacism.
This is a choice you’re making, and I’ve been very, very specific and focused in my criticism of you. Stop rhetorically aiding white supremacists.
The word proof was never used by me, those are your words. On the contrary, I used the word evidence. So you’re the one that’s straw-manning.
Furthermore, you want to do so on the basis of a scientific hypothesis that is so far still very poorly defined and still entirely lacking in robust evidentiary support, which even you yourself believe to have a less than 2-in-3 chance of actually being true. And you don’t even have any kind of scientific expertise in this subject. Isn’t it incredibly arrogant of you to advocate making policy decisions based on this hypothesis with no better support than that?
It’s a good point and a fair question. But let me respond by asking you a question. Am I advocating making policy changes on that basis, or resisting draconian policy changes that are based on a certitude that there is no biological basis for these IQ differences, which is then extrapolated into certainty that “failing schools” are the culprit, despite the fact that no one has consistently demonstrated a formula to make them “succeed”?
ETA: Given your (again, fair) point about my lack of credentials in this field, do you have any comment on the also-uncredentialled Andy’s repeated use of labels like “bad science” and “pseudoscience”? Is he qualified to make those judgments?
My post was simply a restatement of your claim; I’m somewhat surprised you didn’t notice that. I’m also surprised that you consider a restatement of your claim to be moving the goalposts.
And, did you notice the question mark at the end? That was me verifying that I understood your claim correctly.
Slacker: A=B
EE: So you’re saying B=A?
Slacker: Oh my God, stop changing goalposts!
And this shows me and others that you do deftly avoid evidence, several times in the other thread I pointed at interventions that did work, and showed that genetics does not have the effect that “scientific” racists wanted.
So, answer the question from Kimstu then instead of deflecting with your other hobby horse.
I also previously pointed to historians, anthropologists and geneticiststhat pointed out that people like iiandyiii get it more right than people like you or Murray. So, yeah, you are indeed peddling pseudo-science.
EE, you did not understand it correctly (or, much more likely, you were trying to pull a rhetorical “fast one”). Your question:
No, it is not my claim; furthermore, I don’t believe you can find anything I did say that can reasonably be paraphrased (“restated”) this way.
ETA: Apologies to everyone bored senseless by this argument. One of my greatest weaknesses is an inability to simply let it go when someone is “wrong on the Internet”. :smack:
Well, based on various posts you’ve made, it sounds as though you are arguing for both those positions. The former seems very clearly indicated in, for example, your remarks here from a few months ago:
That comes across pretty unambiguously as desiring general recognition and endorsement of the pre-Civil-Rights racialist belief that black kids are just innately not as smart as white ones on average, so we should accept lower educational standards and expectations for them, instead of imposing racial-egalitarian ones that are “too hard for them”.
Yes, I would definitely describe that as “advocating making policy changes” on the basis of the abovementioned hypothesis about genetic differences.
AFAICT, iiandyiiii is merely reflecting the overwhelming consensus view of research scientists in these fields when he says it’s “bad science” or “pseudoscience” to claim that the hypothesis of genetic IQ differences at the racial-group level is at present empirically validated or reliably corroborated in any way.
That’s not iiandyiiii “making those judgements”, that’s just an accurate description of the current state of the science on the issue. IMHO, when the mainstream scientific consensus considers certain claims to be pseudoscientific bullshit, you don’t need scientific expertise of your own to justify saying “The mainstream scientific consensus considers these claims to be pseudoscientific bullshit.” But you do need such expertise—not to mention a whole lot of solid research evidence backing it up—to justify saying “The mainstream scientific consensus is wrong in considering these claims to be pseudoscientific bullshit.”
Actually, it is your claim. You don’t realize it’s your claim because you don’t actually understand what you’re saying. (Because you’re stupid)
I’m going to explain your own claim to you, in small words. Stop me where you get lost:
STATEMENT 1: Black schoolchildren get more funding on average than white schoolchildren
STATEMENT 2: Excluding Special Ed funding, black schoolchildren get less funding than white schoolchildren
STATEMENT 3: STATEMENT 1 and STATEMENT 2 can both be true because a higher percentage of black schoolchildren receive Special Ed funding
Do you not realize that, mathematically speaking, this must mean that non-special-ed black schoolchildren must receive less per capita funding than non-special-ed white schoolchildren? And that special ed black schoolchildren must receive less per capita funding than special ed white schoolchildren?
Or, to put it another way:
Have you tried not being wrong?
Kimstu, I’m onto you at this point. Unlike some other antagonists here, you make a good show of seeming reasonable and fair. But you are really not, not at all. To wit:
What you claim “pretty unambiguously” represented advocacy for returning to a pre-Brown approach to educating black kids included the following, which you couldn’t have missed because it was part of what you quoted:
So…srsly? The pre-Brown approach was to put extra resources into educating and enriching black kids, while being mindful of their self-esteem? For real? :dubious:
I would BTW encourage people to read that whole post. It’s a nice summation of my educational philosophy, and I think an interesting read—unlike the dry-as-dust, painfully dull squabble over school funding numbers.
You get a technical point here, because although I said “resisting changes”, some of that change has already been implemented over the past 10-15 years. So yes: I would like to move back to the paradigm that held sway before Dubya and his “No Child Left Behind” “soft bigotry of low expectations” bullshit. But I would settle for not letting the “reformers” do any more damage than they already have.
The conference survey, and the comments in the Vox piece, make it clear that there is no consensus. (Even if one side has 60 or 70 percent support in the field, that would not a consensus make—it’s not at all clear that you or Andy understand that.)
Or where you misstate my claim, which is coming in 3, 2, 1…
BZZZT! I did not make STATEMENT 2.
Yes, they could both be true. But they don’t have to be. The fact that a higher percentage of black schoolchildren receive SpEd funding does not in itself require STATEMENT 2 to be true.
If STATEMENT 2 were true, it would indeed mean that. Not “mathematically”, but because it’s basically just a restatement of STATEMENT 2. So?
No. You are amazingly innumerate if you really are an economist. STATEMENT 1 and STATEMENT 2 could both be true, and special ed black schoolchildren could still receive more per capita funding than special ed white schoolchildren. (I’m not saying that’s so, just pointing out that there is no logical conflict preventing all three from being simultaneously true.)
There is absolutely consensus that it’s entirely unreasonable to believe that black people are inherently inferior in intellect due to genetics. Or that there is any inherent racial intellectual hierarchy. Or anything else that would justify your disgusting paternalistic racism.
I shouldn’t have said, every source:
https://nces.ed.gov/pubs/web/97917.asp
Still, $334 out of $10,000 is a pittance and does not really explain the gap.
I don’t understand how you reach your conclusions. Once again, I am very skeptical that you are an economist.
10 white kids. 8 mainstream 2 special ed. The white mainstream kids get $100 in funding and white special ed kids get $150
10 black kids. 5 mainstream and 5 special ed. The black mainstream kids get $90 in funding and the black special ed kids get $200.
The average black kid gets more funding than the white kids. But the black mainstream kids get less than white mainstream kids.
BTW, how did we get off on this tangent. I thought we were discussing how it was OK to be racist as long as the racism was coming from a liberal and directed at white people.
I don’t see anyone saying that blacks have genetically inferior intellects. Its entirely possible I missed it.
If you haven’t been reading SlackerInc’s posts, then you missed it.