That’s one way to read it – I read it with an unwritten “on average” or “as a group” (i.e. “we’re all genetically inferior on average”). Perhaps a clunky way to say it. If we’re wrong, I’m sure Mr Dibble will chime in.
“Group X is, on average, different from group Y” is not a clunky way of saying anything. What’s clunky is making up a phrase and inserting it, and then claiming it is unscientific.
Regards,
Shodan
It’s my understanding that accusations of dishonesty are not banned in any forums other than GD and Elections. Is this incorrect?
Good grief, I hope you’re wrong. What a terrible rule that would be. I find it remarkable that people find “dishonest” as an accusation, however disguised, to be less offensive than “racist.”
ISTR seeing a moderator state this explicitly. But without doing an all-out search for that, it seems pretty much implied here.
This may be what you’re thinking of - though it applies to Elections forum too.
FWIW, this forum could really use a similar rule. Tensions mount here, and it’s real easy to toss off an accusation that your opponent is arguing dishonestly; Lord knows I’ve been tempted, but I’ve tried really hard to avoid such an accusation (I’m too lazy to go back and check all my posts in this thread to see if I’ve successfully avoided it).
There’s no real advantage I can see to allowing folks to accuse others of dishonest behavior, except that it’s fun to do so. That, I think, should be what the pit is for.
“We’re all”, here, means “we are all, as a group”, not “we are all, each and individually”
Then, AFAICT, the statement is not objectionable.
Regards,
Shodan
Well, other than being a misleading (and inflammatory) way of putting it …
Only in the sense that any individual of any race is “genetically inferior” to any other individual of any race who has a higher IQ. And that’s what we’re talking about-- IQ.
If I say that SSAs are, on average. lower in intelligence (as measured by IQ test) than Europeans, that does not tell us how any random European compares to any random SSA. You cannot jump from “on average” to “all”, nor can you assign some genetic value to an individual based on the genetic average of what group you put the individual in.
“We’re all genetically inferior on average” is not just clunky, it’s nonsensical. Once you say “we are all” you are saying “we, each and every one of us, is…”.
Unless, that is, it cane be determined that every member of Group A actually is “genetically inferior” (by whatever manner) to every member of Group B.
No rule needed to self moderate. No rule needed to hold yourself to a higher standard when confronted with assholery.
The larger point from Mr Dibble, I think, is that it’s offensive and racist to say “black people are, on average, inherently inferior to white people in intelligence”, even if that statement doesn’t assert that every single black person is inferior. “They’re mostly and usually inferior” is still racist, even if it’s not as racist as “they’re all always inferior”.
That’s unfortunate. It’s almost certainly true that one group is “on average” less intelligent than the other group, as measured by <insert test here>. As long as no one is saying “you, poster, are less intelligent than some other person”, then I don’t see the problem. There is no guarantee that you will not be offended on this MB by things people post. In fact, I would hate to see what a MB would like in which no offensive posts were allowed.
I think, given the long history of threads on the topic of genetic inferiority, that I and others have become sensitized to what now reads as a code for a racist sentiment. Once a particular statement has been de-bunked, often repeatedly, about the genetic superiority of a group, the idea is re-introduced in a new and improved format.
I agree that the statement “group A performed better in test B than group c” should be uncontroversial. Board history may make this type of statement seem like the retread of previous threads, however. Threads and case may vary.
I also agree that one ought to be able to call someone a racist if they clearly and obiviously meet the standards. It is verboten, so that’s what the Pit is for.
It does seem that in an attempt to encourage free speach and the open exchange of ideas, we (as a Community) often bend over backwards to accommodate users whose views are generally offensive. Overall, I agree that having a more diverse community on the Board is healthy. It is occasionally uncomfortable and even repugnant, unfortunately.
I stopped participating in those threads awhile back since it was, indeed, the same stuff regurgitated over and over again, more often than not by the same posters. But the sad fact is, it’s exactly like a lot of other topics:
Climate Change
Minimum Wage
“Judicial Activism”
Gun Control
SSM
etc, etc, etc.
Just to name a few. There seems to be this never ending optimism that if we debate a certain topic just one more time, we’ll get it right. Frankly, I think it would be useful just to have an Omnibus Pit Thread on “Race Realism”, and take anyone there immediately who opens a new thread on that topic.
Well, yeah. I’ll continue trying to avoid this, regardless of the rules status. I’m thinking kind of selfishly: it’s a pretty goddamned annoying thing, when folks who suffer from a failure of imagination assume that the only reason you can be disagreeing with them is a dishonest refusal to admit you know they’re right.
I think it should be allowed, and it should be allowed to accurately characterize it. This board comes close enough that I’m not complaining particularly hard – I can call the assertion racist, which I will do if I feel that an assertion fits the qualifications.
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”.