# Race, Racism and Such **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [April 28, 2016, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-racism-and-such/753346 "2016-04-28T15:58:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2016, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-racism-and-such/753346/161 "2016-05-04T05:17:07Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Then, AFAICT, the statement is not objectionable. “The group you are a member of is a pool of inherent intellectual inferiority” is not objectionable? Give me a fucking break. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2016, 6:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-racism-and-such/753346/162 "2016-05-04T06:50:59Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > “The group you are a member of is a pool of inherent intellectual inferiority” is not objectionable? Give me a fucking break. Do you believe that all groups imaginable are intellectually equal? That would be astonishing. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2016, 7:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-racism-and-such/753346/163 "2016-05-04T07:07:19Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Do you believe that all groups imaginable are intellectually equal? Obviously not - if the groups were “people with intellectual disability” and “people without”, for instance. Or “People who are not Stephen Hawking” and “Stephen Hawking”, say. So “imaginable” is kind of a weasel word there, isn’t it? However, I _do_ believe all \*\*broad racial groups \*\*are intellectually equal on an inherent genetic basis (within normal statistical margins - _perfectly_ equal would be, of course, ridiculous). And to think I was referring to anything else when I was specifically talking about SSAfricans as a group is disingenuous. > [@](#): > > That would be astonishing. Your easy ability to be amazed is hardly my concern. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2016, 9:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-racism-and-such/753346/164 "2016-05-04T09:42:20Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > It is allowed to characterize it, accurately or otherwise. You just can’t call people names, which is not necessary in order to “characterize it”. Then it mostly sounds good to me! ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2016, 12:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-racism-and-such/753346/165 "2016-05-04T12:17:46Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > “The group you are a member of is a pool of inherent intellectual inferiority” is not objectionable? Give me a fucking break. In the sense of “not against the rules” it is not objectionable. > [@](#): > > However, I do believe all broad racial groups are intellectually equal on an inherent genetic basis (within normal statistical margins - perfectly equal would be, of course, ridiculous). This is either faith-based, or evidence-based. If it is faith-based, then fine - GD is the place for witnessing. If it is evidence-based, then argue the evidence. Saying “no one should be allowed to witness unless I agree with it” is not a consistent position. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2016, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-racism-and-such/753346/166 "2016-05-04T13:17:32Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > In the sense of “not against the rules” it is not objectionable. Aah, so by “not objectionable”, you meant “in my super-sekrit highly singular definition of the word objectionable”, good to know. > [@](#): > > This is either faith-based, or evidence-based. If it is faith-based, then fine - GD is the place for witnessing. If it is evidence-based, then argue the evidence. GD is also the place for that, not ATMB. And we’ve already argued it there, many, many times. I’m not in here to debate you or anyone about the obvious. Just to point out that unlike **John** believes, personal attacks on entire groups of which Dopers are members are not always modded. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2016, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-racism-and-such/753346/167 "2016-05-04T13:27:51Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Obviously not - if the groups were “people with intellectual disability” and “people without”, for instance. Or “People who are not Stephen Hawking” and “Stephen Hawking”, say. So “imaginable” is kind of a weasel word there, isn’t it? What about if someone argued that left-handed people were, on average, more intelligent? Do you think this is also objectionable? > [@](#): > > However, I _do_ believe all \*\*broad racial groups \*\*are intellectually equal on an inherent genetic basis (within normal statistical margins - _perfectly_ equal would be, of course, ridiculous). And to think I was referring to anything else when I was specifically talking about SSAfricans as a group is disingenuous. No, no one thinks you’re talking about anything other than SSAfricans. But it’s a valid extrapolation, based on the reasons you’ve given for objecting in the case of SSAfricans, to apply that same approach and derive that same conclusion in other groups. What difference is there between saying you’re “inferior” in the specific sense of being a member of a group with a lower average IQ (SSAfricans) and saying you’re “inferior” in the specific sense of being a member of a group with a lower average IQ (right-handed people)? ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2016, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-racism-and-such/753346/168 "2016-05-04T13:43:30Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > What about if someone argued that left-handed people were, on average, more intelligent? Do you think this is also objectionable? Yes, I would, given I know there’s no valid reason to believe it, unlike the case with, say, mentally handicapped people… > [@](#): > > No, no one thinks you’re talking about anything other than SSAfricans. But it’s a valid extrapolation, based on the reasons you’ve given for objecting in the case of SSAfricans, to apply that same approach and derive that same conclusion in other groups. Cute, but races/ethnicities are not like other random groups. Hell, they’re not even like many other genetic groups > [@](#): > > What difference is there between saying you’re “inferior” in the specific sense of being a member of a group with a lower average IQ (SSAfricans) and saying you’re “inferior” in the specific sense of being a member of a group with a lower average IQ (right-handed people)? No difference. Both would be objectionable. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2016, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-racism-and-such/753346/169 "2016-05-04T13:57:09Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Yes, I would, given I know there’s no valid reason to believe it, unlike the case with, say, mentally handicapped people. You are confident about a lot of things. But there is valid reason to believe it and some research which supports it (if inconclusively). Random cite: [Sinister Minds: Are Left-Handed People Smarter? | The New Yorker](http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/sinister-minds-are-left-handed-people-smarter). Certainly enough to make it a valid discussion topic. But regardless of this, it now sounds like you’re adding a necessary condition here. The reason you find these types of statements objectionable is only because you “know there’s no valid reason to believe it”. To the extent that there might be a valid reason to believe it, you presumably would not find it objectionable. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2016, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-racism-and-such/753346/170 "2016-05-04T14:12:05Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Aah, so by “not objectionable”, you meant “in my super-sekrit highly singular definition of the word objectionable”, good to know. No, I mean that it is not against the rules, which are not secret or singular. > [@](#): > > GD is also the place for that, not ATMB. And we’ve already argued it there, many, many times. I’m not in here to debate you or anyone about the obvious. Just to point out that unlike John believes, personal attacks on entire groups of which Dopers are members are not always modded. I believe I mentioned that GD was the place for witnessing. You are correct that ATMB is not the place to debate race. It _is_ the place to discuss the rules, which is what we are doing. “Personal attacks on groups” is a contradiction in terms. Either it is an attack on a person, or an attack on a group. Attacks on persons are not allowed; attacks on groups are allowed, even if some Doper is a member of that group. This is not new policy. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2016, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-racism-and-such/753346/171 "2016-05-04T16:00:18Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > You are confident about a lot of things. Brimming with it. > [@](#): > > But there is valid reason to believe it and some research which supports it (if inconclusively). Random cite: [Sinister Minds: Are Left-Handed People Smarter? | The New Yorker](http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/sinister-minds-are-left-handed-people-smarter). I am familiar with theories that lefties are environmentally forced to become more adaptable/creative. That’s not inherent. The brain structure stuff is new to me and, as you say, inconclusive. But not relevant to my point, which is: > [@](#): > > Certainly enough to make it a valid discussion topic. “Does left-handedness correlate to better SAT performance, and why” is a discussion we can happily have. “Right-handers are, on average, inherently intellectually inferior” is not. This is, of course, compounded by the fact that handedness is a scientific fact and human race is not. > [@](#): > > But regardless of this, it now sounds like you’re adding a necessary condition here. The reason you find these types of statements objectionable is only because you “know there’s no valid reason to believe it”. Did I use the word “only”? Why are you putting words in my mouth? > [@](#): > > To the extent that there might be a valid reason to believe it, you presumably would not find it objectionable. Depends what’s actually being discussed, like I said. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2016, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-racism-and-such/753346/172 "2016-05-04T16:09:31Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > No, I mean that it is not against the rules, which are not secret or singular. Then say what you mean, don’t use words that mean other things, like “objectionable”, which has nothing to do with rules or the breaking thereof. > [@](#): > > I believe I mentioned that GD was the place for witnessing. Also for debate. > [@](#): > > “Personal attacks on groups” is a contradiction in terms. Either it is an attack on a person, or an attack on a group. Pedantically correct. But then, you knew what I meant - “personal attack” is the board idiom for “insult” > [@](#): > > Attacks on persons are not allowed; attacks on groups are allowed, even if some Doper is a member of that group. Not when that attack is also hate speech, like “Jews are inherently greedy”. It’s highly selective. > [@](#): > > This is not new policy. Neither are the “Don’t be a jerk” and “no hate speech” rules, but they don’t apply evenly either, so why should this one? ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2016, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-racism-and-such/753346/173 "2016-05-04T16:27:08Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > But not relevant to my point, which is: “Does left-handedness correlate to better SAT performance, and why” is a discussion we can happily have. “Right-handers are, on average, inherently intellectually inferior” is not. It’s not clear what distinction you’re making between these two statements. > [@](#): > > Did I use the word “only”? Why are you putting words in my mouth? In the context in which you used it, “given” and “only” mean the exact same thing. If someone says “I would, given that …” it’s the exact same thing as saying “I would, only if …”. So you said what I attributed to you, and my point stands. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2016, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-racism-and-such/753346/174 "2016-05-04T16:37:44Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Then say what you mean, don’t use words that mean other things, like “objectionable”, which has nothing to do with rules or the breaking thereof. ATMB is for discussion of the rules. Therefore it is a pretty safe assumption that I am talking about the rules, not something else. Especially if you are then going to assume I am actually talking about “sekrit” whatever. > [@](#): > > Also for debate. No one denies this. > [@](#): > > Pedantically correct. But then, you knew what I meant - “personal attack” is the board idiom for “insult” The key word is “personal”, meaning “aimed at a particular poster”. Thus your distinction is meaningless - insults can be aimed at groups, but not individuals (apart from the Pit). “Sub-Saharan Africans and their descendants, on average, score lower on IQ tests than other groups, even when SES is held constant” is not hate speech, even if you find it offensive. It will not be considered hate speech, no matter how often you complain. I have no confidence that it will sink in this time either. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2016, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-racism-and-such/753346/175 "2016-05-04T16:59:33Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > “Sub-Saharan Africans and their descendants, on average, score lower on IQ tests than other groups, even when SES is held constant” is not hate speech, even if you find it offensive. It will not be considered hate speech, no matter how often you complain. > > I have no confidence that it will sink in this time either. > > Regards, > Shodan I’m unaware that **Mr Dibble** (or anyone) has ever considered this statement hate speech. The assertions that we’ve taken issue with are not about test scores, but about inherent intellectual ability from genetics. “Black people are, on average, inherently intellectually inferior due to inferior genes for intelligence” is very, very different than “black people, on average, score lower on these tests”. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2016, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-racism-and-such/753346/176 "2016-05-04T17:02:19Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > “The group you are a member of is a pool of inherent intellectual inferiority” is not objectionable? Give me a fucking break. Of course not. I’d happily acknowledge my own racial group is a pool of inherent intellectual inferiority (as is, probably, yours). If you don’t have the objectivity or the humility to do that, I’d suggest the problem is with you, not with me. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2016, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-racism-and-such/753346/177 "2016-05-04T17:05:04Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Your easy ability to be amazed is hardly my concern. The fact that your feelings apparently get hurt by discussions of the intellectual capacity of your ethnic group is _even less_ my concern. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2016, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-racism-and-such/753346/178 "2016-05-04T17:07:14Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Not when that attack is also hate speech, like “Jews are inherently greedy”. It’s highly selective. Wait, what? This is forbidden speech here? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2016, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-racism-and-such/753346/179 "2016-05-04T17:08:13Z")
The difference between assertions about test scores and about inherent intellectual ability due to genetics is the same as the difference between (for example) “Jews, on average, save X% of their wealth more than non-Jews” and “Jews are, on average, inherently greedier than non-Jews due to inferior genes for charity”. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2016, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-racism-and-such/753346/180 "2016-05-04T17:09:32Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > Of course not. I’d happily acknowledge my own racial group is a pool of inherent intellectual inferiority (as is, probably, yours). I imagine this hypothetical is much, much easier to consider accepting when you’re not part of an ethnic group that has, for centuries, had extreme brutality against it justified by pseudoscientific claims about inferior intelligence. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-racism-and-such/753346.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-racism-and-such/753346.md?page=10)