Um, why? Do you have the slightest bit of evidence for that? I already mentioned that I think the average IQ for my own group is fairly low, and that the differences are probably significantly genetic.
As far as I know, Black people in America are more likely to believe the Black vs. White test score gap is due to genetic factors as white people are.
In any case, while the factors you mentioned might help explain a lack of objectivity and humility, they’re hardly excuses for it.
You seem to be taking for granted this the “Jews are greedy” argument would be treated differently than the race-IQ one. I don’t think this is true, assuming it followed the same structure. Meaning, suppose someone could document that Jews, on average saved X% of their wealth more than non-Jews, and then turned around and speculated that this is likely due to some genetic cause, I don’t think it would be treated differently than the race-IQ discussions. It would, of course, be subject to the same considerations involving normalizing for various other factors, and the extent to which greed is a genetic function etc. But I would think to the extent that you could bring facts and reason to bear on that discussion, it would be analogous to the discussions we have here.
If you’re trying to conjure up images of someone simply declaring “those Jews are just a bunch of greedy conniving bastards”, then sure it would be hate speech. As would “those blacks are just a bunch of dumb niggers”. But that’s not the structure of the discussions here.
[ISTM that this underlies the comparison you keep making. There is typically very little in the way of actual evidence brought to bear when Jewish greed is brought up, so raising that issue automatically conjures up the empty bigotry type of discussion. But if it took a more facts-and-reason form, then I would say that’s fair game too.]
Neither of them, though, seems particularly objectionable to me, unless the latter had been proven to be false.
+100.
I do occasionally hear discussions along those lines brought up, often by, uh, people who are themselves ethnically Jewish, and I certainly wouldn’t want to see them excluded from public discourse.
I don’t want to exclude these arguments, I just want to be able to accurately characterize them. And, according to the rules of the board, I can (mostly) do this, so I’m not really complaining.
It’s all anecdotal – I’m not sure what other evidence could be presented for how I think other people feel making certain statements.
Well said.
I think this is a very important point. It’s as though the feelings of members of the racist group are more important than the feelings of the members of the African American group.
I also agree with your approach of not joining these cesspool threads even to argue against the racists’ assertions. The arguments someone makes against the racists are typically ignored so the only effect of a new post to these threads is to keep them on the first page of GD.
So basically, you have no evidence. Carry on, then.
ISTM that his claim (FWIW) is a common-sense one that can be made without direct evidence.
We don’t allow “you’re genetically inferior”. We allow “the group to which you belong, on average, performs lower on IQ tests even when SES is held constant”. Just like we allow “those views are racist”, or “voter ID laws are intended to prevent minorities from voting”.
It is not a “deeply personal dig”. And if you can’t debate calmly when groups to which you may belong are insulted, then you are correct to stay out of threads where the characteristics of those groups are debated.
We are not holding them to any standard that we aren’t holding Republicans, or Democrats, or Trump voters, or Clinton voters, or Sanders voters, or Zionists, or anti-Zionists, or anyone else.
Regards,
Shodan
Yes, until we get mass mind-reading, or an absurdly and unrealistically specific poll, then I’ll have to go with anecdotal evidence and common sense.
But if you want to believe (for example) that Jews react no differently than non-Jews if accused of greed, then go right ahead.
The longer I frequent this board, the more evident it becomes that posters who insist on calling other posters racist are emotionally fragile, and use the loaded term to pitifully cement their sense of inner sanctity.
I have always said “let the fools speak freely and judge them accordingly.” Big boys don’t get butthurt and take it personal because an anonymous stranger on the internet said a mean about a particular group of people. Bandying about the term “racist” serves no purpose other than to brand someone, often illegitimately, with the ignominious “R.”
Suits only the fool, I say. Let him speak to remove all doubt.
:rolleyes:
Why should “big boys” get butthurt and take it personal (sic) because an anonymous stranger on the internet calls them racist?
.
The heat and insults are starting to grow, so let’s take it to the Pit if you can’t dial it back some.
Nvm.
Try it and see.
If you can’t tell the difference, then there’s no real point talking to you about it, as your frame of reference would appear to be vastly different from any I can relate to…
No. The second formulation does not preclude there being other possible givens (say, “given I’m talking to a known racist”, the first does.
And complaints about the moderation. Which is what I was doing.
Nope. Since this is also for complaints, “objectionable” could (and did, for me) refer to reactions, not rules. You know, like it’s actual real-life meaning.
No, not in my statement. The key word is “attack”. Drop the word “personal” and my sentence still conveys the meaning I intended. Please do so. Consider it a late edit.
Try insulting Jews as a group, then…
Good thing that’s not what I said was hate speech, then.
Damnit, I do know when to use the apostrophe it’s correctly.
You forgot to quote that. :dubious: 