Remember:
Saying someone is racist - very strong, nasty connotations, do not do!
Saying an entire group of people outside of your own are mentally retarded because of inferior genetics while quoting studies that have been proven discredited - there are no bad connotations with this, this is fine.
Nope. You are 100% wrong.
You should have stopped with this. If so, you would have been correct about what I was doing. Actually, to be fully accurate, you should have said, “…that it’s not necessarily racist…”
No. It would be begging the question if I was trying to convince you that Black people are less intelligent by entertaining a hypothetical discussion where a an all-knowing wizard said so. That’s not what I’m doing. I am not asking you to accept that. And I don’t believe that to be the case. I’m looking at the characteristics of the statement made by a scientist in an alternate universe: one in which we know what intelligence is and can accurately see how it is distributed.
Again that’s not what I’ve done. The assumption I made in my hypothetical (Blacks, on average, are less intelligent) is NOT anything I am arguing. To use your analogy and make it more accurate to what I’m doing: “If god came down and gave us positive proof that magellan01 is a child molester, should magellan01 be allowed to be a camp counselor?” There’s a big difference. Yours begs the question, mine doesn’t. But mine is analogous to what I have been arguing. Yours isn’t.
Sorry, you’re wrong. It’s perfectly fine to propose an omnipotent enemy in a hypothetical in order to block out unknowns and focus on a specific question, as long as the omnipotent entity’s knowledge is not being offered as direct evidence in support of what it trying to be proven. That is not what I’m doing. In fact, I don’t even hold the position that Blacks are in any way less intelligent. And I’ve not argued that at all.
This makes no sense to me. I don’t see what purpose a hypothetical would serve in determining these answers.
Nope. That’s not what I’m doing at all. I really think you’d benefit from a more careful rereading of the discussion.
You’ve chosen to type. Perhaps you should have chosen to read first.
And if you claim that you did, then my God, you’re a dumb one.
You have to be making some point, right? Well, “if the universe was different, this would be acceptable” isn’t a point. It’s an obvious truism. Different premises create different conclusions. But, since you are making an argument, ou must have a purpose for saying it, and if you won’t offer your own, you should expect people to make it up for you, as they need to to understand your argument. And what they make up will often be negative, because, otherwise, they figure, you would just say it.
In this universe, where we don’t have the proof you are talking about, claiming that black people are less intelligent by nature, even under guise of science, is racist. Just because it might not be racist in your hypothetical universe doesn’t mean it isn’t in this one. They don’t know for sure, and there is evidence they are wrong, but they choose to continue to believe the more racist hypothesis. That makes them racist.
If you think the fact that this would not be true given different premises is relevant to this universe, you need to spell out why. People are not going to entertain a hypothetical unless you make it clear what your point is. People, especially on this board, are very guarded against accidentally saying something that can be interpreted as a belief they find repugnant.
BTW, if God himself said that black people were stupid, He would be racist. Stupid isn’t a factual word, but a derogatory one. Being derogatory towards a racial group is racism even if it’s true. This is in fact the part of racism that the scientific racists try to get around, thinking that racism is only a surface thing. It’s both. The way you say something can be racist, and the underlying meaning can be racist.
Oh, and C is racist because it makes a value judgment. It talks about white people having a genetic advantage. The most any data could say, even in your hypothetical universe, is that black people have an average intelligence that is lower than that of white people, and the evidence shows that there is a significant* genetic component. It could never say that this makes white DNA superior, even in the limited aspect of intelligence.
*significant being used in the scientific sense. If you want, replace it with a percentage.
The problem is that intelligence is a broad, diverse spectrum that resists clear definition. IQ scores may give you a handy way to rate individuals, but their scope is very narrow and they are culturally biased. The manner in which one person is intelligent differs significantly from the next person, in the same way as talent – musical ability, graphical artistry, mechanical adeptness, etc. You simply cannot define intelligence in the same way as melanin production, hair kinkiness or epicanthic folds, it is not a thing easily nailed down. The premise is untenable.
I insist on describing things accurately. Complaining about me calling it “racist” is like complaining about me calling elephants “grey”.
That statement, like “Jews are, on average, greedier and less trustworthy”, is always necessarily a racist statement. It’s a good thing that the word “racist” has such negative connotations, and it’s a good thing that claiming one group is less intelligent is considered a racist claim- it means, at the very least, that someone who doesn’t want to be called a racist will be extremely careful making that claim… that a wise person would have rock-solid evidence before making anything close to that claim. There’s not even close to rock-solid evidence… not even jello-solid evidence! You might find it unfair that the poor scientist is maligned as making a racist claim, but I find it entirely fair and appropriate. Some issues deserve to be treated a bit differently, and this is one of them.
Strongly disagree. This is not a broad use of the word- this is the very simplest and most fundamental usage of the word “racist”. “Black people, on average, are inherently less intelligent” is perhaps one of the purest and simplest examples of a racist statement. If this is not a racist statement, then nothing is a racist statement. When someone says “blacks are lazy”, that’s a racist statement. Very simple. Same situation here. Even if someone thinks they have actual good evidence that black people are lazy, it’s still a racist statement. Everyone who makes racist claims thinks they have good, solid evidence. They should be called out for it, every single time. On the off chance that someone actually finds some sort of decent evidence, we’ll cross that bridge when we come to it.
Perhaps it’s because I had trouble understanding iiandyiiii’s position in another thread, but your objection seems misplaced to me.
I understand iiandyiiii’s position to be that 1) there is no evidence that “blacks” are less (or more) intelligent than “whites” and 2) even if there was evidence, the claim would be necessarily racist. Now, sometimes he seems to back away from #2, by suggesting that he might have to reevaluate that proposition if there was enough evidence that he was satisfied with, but it’s not entirely clear on that point.
But, the question that’s being asked (as I understand it) is: why #2? It’s not begging the question, because iiandyiiii appears to be saying exactly that it is “racist to say that Black people are stupid, provided that it’s true.” Assuming arguendo the truth of that premise in order to have that discussion seems quite sensible to me.
Sure, it’s difficult to define “black” or “stupid” (or “intelligence” or “race”), and that’s why it may all be a moot point. But it’s not an obvious flaw in the hypothetical.
I have stated it. Both here and in the other thread where iiandiiii and I were discussing things. My point is that scientific inquiry is not racist. Or at the very least, not necessarily racist. (Sure there can be racist scientists. And that there is a conflation of racist and racial. So no one need be guessing about what my point is or isn’t.
I agree that there are different types of talent that we call intelligence. The way I am using it refers to one’s general aptitude. For the purposes of this discussion, that is what people have been referring to when using “intelligence”.
But I’n not asking that you describe things inaccurately. You admitted that both racial and racist were correct. What I’m questioning is why you want to always use racist when racial is also appropriate?
The statements are the same. I agree yours is racist because it uses the purely subjective qualities of greediness and untrustworthiness. While intelligence might be difficult to measure, is not in the same ballpark. And certainly not in the hypothetical, in which case all mystery has been removed.
Bu there is evidence. Some people give it more weight than you do, but there is still evidence. Not proof, and not anywhere near it, but there is evidence.
But here I see more where you are coming from. You want to use the word as a cudgel. Not only against actual racists or claims that everyone would agree are racist, but against anything that might be construed to disparage one race. I reject that ham-handedness outright. Ironically, one thing that makes racism and our history with slavery so repugnant is the fundamental unfairness that undergirds it and permeates it. It boggles my mind that you want to fight that unfairness with that same fundamental ugliness. As I said earlier, what you propose is both illogical and unfair.
So, in the quest for equality, egalitarianism and fairness the road you want to take to get there is unfairness? I think what we’ve learned from people who have waged fights like these successfully (MLK, Gandhi…) is that the best weapon one has is a correct position. They own the high road. I’m amazed that you are so willing to abandon it.
Now, why do you mock the scientist? Seriously. You seemed to make the point before, rather strongly, that while you are very critical of the statement, that you’re careful to not denigrate the person. This seems that you are doing so. So let me ask for a little clarification. We no doubt agree that a statement that is racist can very well (likely?) come from someone who is a racist. But do you now also hold that if a statement that you deem as racist is made, that the person making it is necessarily a racist?
It may be a racist statement, it may not be. It depends on if it’s just made up out of thin air or if there is evidence for it. In our hypothetical, there is not only evidence, but proof. And there is no ill intent on the part of our two “Black, super-liberal” scientists. So, your claim above flies in the face of logic. And, yes, fairness.
While I think you would grant that laziness is even more difficult to measure than intelligence, using my own hypothetical, I’d say you were correct. If our omnipotent wizard-God shared with us data that we found 100% convincing, then making the statement about laziness would not—necessarily—be racist. Racial? Yes. Racist? maybe.
No. They should be challenged. And they should be considered racist only when context is taken into account and it leads there. So, if some guy in a white hood mumbles it at a clan rally, that’s one thing. If two scientists are discussing scientific facts, that’s at the other end of the spectrum. You’d be right and fair in calling one a racist. You’d be wrong and unfair calling the other person a racist. Absolutely wrong in our hypothetical, and possibly wrong outside of it.
Tell me, do you think it is possible that our scientist would make that statement that you consider racist and for him to be completely not racist?
So why do scientists even need to research something like this? It’s become clear, time and time again, that intelligence is impossible to quantify. If you choose one particular metric to quantify it, and stick with it, what is your end-game? What is the end-game of using a particular IQ test, for example? Even if that particular test, when used, determines that blacks from one region scored 3% less than whites from the same region, what is the goal?
Is the end-game simply to state that the scientists are not racists THEMSELVES for making scientific inquiry? If so, fine, but I guarantee that this is not the end-game for many scientific racists out there.
Because it’s a better descriptor. It’s more accurate, it fits better, etc.
Whether or not “mystery” remains is immaterial to whether a claim is racist, using the current definition and common use.
Weak evidence, and nothing that points exclusively to a genetic explanation. But it doesn’t matter how strong any evidence is for whether a claim is racist or not.
Your characterization of my motives are incorrect. I want to label racist claims racist. There’s no motive about it- I just want things properly labeled. And I think it’s completely fair to label such claims racist. Perhaps it would be unfair to label all such people as racist, but I’m not doing that- I’m only calling claims racist, not people.
And I think you’re totally wrong about this- not surprisingly, I think my position is the “high road”, as it is the one using language correctly according to definitions and common use.
I’m not making any claims about the hypothetical scientist, nor am I mocking him. If my use of the phrase “poor scientist” is mocking anyone, it’s those (like you, perhaps) who seem to feel so bad that mean ol’ me is calling his claims racist (when they fit the definition in the simplest sense).
By definition and common use, my descriptor is correct. It doesn’t matter who makes the claim, or why they make it, or what evidence they have- if they are making the claim that black people are, on average, inherently less intelligent, then they are making a racist claim. Racist is the best word to describe the claim- far better than “racial”. Perhaps this will change in the future.
Racist? Yes. Same issue.
I’m not calling any person a racist, just the claim.
I’m making no claims at all about whether any particular person is racist or not.
If I can step aside and hazard a personal guess about motives, magellan01, this is what I think is driving you in this debate (I’ll qualify that I’m nowhere near certain this is the case, so I could very well be wrong, but this is how I’m reading you): you think it’s likely that black people are inherently less intelligent on average, due to genetics. You’re not certain, but you’re leaning towards that. And the idea that this belief of yours, even though you’re not certain, might be racist, really bothers of you.
But that’s the dilemna that all people of the slightest bit of conscience and thoughtfulness must go through if they believe/claim racist things- they think they have good reason to believe and claim this, so they rationalize that this must mean they’re not racist. Even the hood-wearing Klan members believe this- they think they have good reason, just as I’m guessing that you think that you do too (though you’re probably not nearly as certain as the Klanner would be).
All people with racist beliefs and claims think they have good reason. What makes the claims of a scientist special, or CP, or you? Why is your belief/claim so much better, more valid, and more relevantly, not racist? It’s the same claim.
Most Klanners and neo-Nazis almost certainly believe that black people are inherently genetically less intelligent than white people. Many of them probably even look at the same sources and cites that CP, Chen, and others here have produced and say “here is the evidence!”. Are their claims not racist?
It’s the same claim. It doesn’t matter who makes it, or why they make it, or what evidence they think they have. If a scientist repeats the same claim of a Klanner, it’s a racist claim. If the Klanner repeats the same claim of the scientist, it’s still a racist claim. And it’s the same if a poster on the SDMB makes it.
I’m not sure he does believe it. I think he may be one of those posters who insists the argument is plausible just because it aggravates liberals, and anything that aggravates liberals must have some merits. But it’s not fun to be called a racist, so he’s looking for some wiggle room.
More- I think a lot of what drives this discussion is tone: one side thinks it’s perfectly OK to make claims like “black people are dumber”, as long as you do it in a certain way- you have to have some scientific-sounding data, you can’t say it in a vulgar way, and you can’t imply anything about human rights or human value. So, basically, you can say “black people are dumber” as long as you phrase it nicely and have some numbers to show.
I’m saying that tone doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter how you say it- it’s a racist thing to say no matter what. And more than that, this is a good and positive thing for humanity.
I’m not worried about scientists being afraid to find the truth- for one thing, I’m not advocating censorship or government sanctions against such research. And the scientists who are passionate about this, as many that CP, Chen and others gleefully cite, are continuing their research with no compunctions. I think their conclusions are bunk and, at best, wildly premature, but they’re not being stopped from doing science. Such claims should have a very high bar to clear, and they haven’t even come close!
So I will continue to call such claims racist, whether they come from the mouth of a neo-Nazi, a scientist, or a fellow Doper.
I think you are probably correct in this. Some people think it is OK to make true statements if the evidence warrants it.
Others don’t, apparently.
Regards,
Shodan
So call us when the evidence warrants it. Then it might be worth revisiting the common and proper usage of the word “racist”. Until then, those claims, whether by Klanners or researchers or dopers, are racist claims.
My last post was somewhat lacking in nuance. I don’t think these posters are necessarily doing this just to annoy liberals- I think they assume that any position liberals vehemently reject must be the truth, and they defend the dumb-blacks theory on that basis. People on both sides of the aisle like to annoy their opponents, but it does seem like conservatives are a little more driven to piss off liberals. For some of them it just makes their day. So you get people who have no particular stake on the matter saying hey, it’s plausible that black people are genetically stupid and half the people in Africa are retarded. What’s your problem with science?
I think you have already made it abundantly clear that you are not interested in evidence. You have your knee-jerk response chosen - enjoy it.
Regards,
Shodan
On the contrary, I’m very interested in evidence. Specifically, I’m very interested in learning about the genes for high intelligence if someone is making a claim about which groups have a greater likelihood of having these genes. And so far, the “blacks are dumber” crowd knows and offers nothing about the genes for high intelligence. Zilch.