Yeah, no, but it is, though.
It is the way he’s using it i.e. as an unwanted, disowned, label for his debate opponents he’s aware they don’t like and have asked him to stop using.
Been done.
Like I said, you’ll note I’m not debating him once he restarted that egalitarian crap. I just find it amusing that you think his use of egalitarian is in any way different from our use of racist.
That’s a charitable way to interpret it, which is your prerogative. I don’t interpret it in the same way. I think it’s reasonable to call an assertion that calls black people “inferior for intelligence” as a racist assertion.
This is moving the goalposts - first it was ‘you’re conflating “less intelligent” with “inferior”’, now it’s ‘oh, but he used inferior in a specific way’.
I find it VERY different. Honestly. In our society I think the only thing that is a bigger insult then racist is pedophile.
That said, why does the term “egalitarian” even come up? If everyone agrees that genes are not dispersed in egalitarian manner, and if everyone agrees that intelligence does likely have a genetic component, why is it repeatedly brought up. Which of those positions is being pushed back on for being seated in an egalitarian outlook?
No it’s not. It’s responding to two different claims: 1) Are blacks inferior? 2) are blacks inferior on a specific metric? Are Asians an inferior race because they might be “inferior” on the metric of height?
Personally, I find “retarded” to be a bigger insult, as in “your entire continent is functionally retarded.” YMMV.
I don’t know, it’s CP’s strawman, ask him.
And this brings us back to nature. You’ve said that nature is not/cannot be racist. So if I make a statement that reflects nature, e.g., “Asians are shorter than other races”, is that racist? It’s racial, but it lacks the animus of thought that is required for it to qualify AS RACIST.
It’s disingenuous to pretend that intelligence is like any other metric used for these purposes - not height, not skin colour, not hair, not muscle twitchiness, not even disease prevalence.
Intelligence is about who we as human beings, fundamentally. Yes, saying some group is intrinsically of inferior intelligence is saying they are fundamentally inferior human beings, in a way no common other metric would be.
I don’t find these claims different for certain characteristics. Would you defend, to the same degree, a claim that “black people are inferior in morality” due to genes, with the cite of criminal statistics? I hope not.
For me, intelligence is as fundamentally human a characteristic that goes to the very core of what it is to be human as much as morality, and claims of a certain race’s inferiority in both of these characteristics have been fundamental to various forms of brutality and oppression. The same cannot be said of claims about height, skin color, medical susceptibility, or other characteristics not a significant part of what makes us humans.
Nature doesn’t classify people into races at all. That’s all on you, magellan.
No, it’s not racist. Height is not intelligence – height hasn’t been used to justify oppression and discrimination; intelligence has. I don’t believe “animus of thought” is required for racism. Some slave-owners thought they were doing slaves a favor by owning them and controlling their lives; they were still racists.
Thinking that you are doing someone a favor by owning them and controlling every aspect of their lives doesn’t constitute “animus of thought” towards that human being? Is that some aspect to progressive thought that I have been unaware of all these years?
Slave owners may have had “affection” for the slave, but only as long as the human being behind the slave accepted the slave system en entirety. The “affection” disappeared quickly if the slave ever tried to asset himself as a human being. That’s your “animus of thought” right there. I’m really shocked that you can’t see it.
An insult can still be an insult, even when true. If I said to someone, “You’re ugly and you have a small dick” it would be insulting even if he were ugly and had a small dick. Just so with racist.
In any case the term is so inflammatory that its introduction (as descriptive of a poster) pretty much precludes all intelligent discussion.
But that’s really beside the point. Nature does’t know that height is a minor trait, speed is a minor trait, and intelligence is some all-important trait. I’m sure where we can point to species where either stature or speed or strength or vision or X is the most important trait. The fact is that intelligence is either spread equally among the races or it isn’t. Even you’ve allowed that that MAY be the case, negligible as it may be. So, if it turns out that it IS the case (we find an intelligence gene and can speak about it definitively), is mentioning this fact of nature racist?
I imagine this is a difference in interpretation rather than philosophy. I don’t believe the concept of evil requires “animus of thought”. People can do evil without such animus – they may want certain people to be harmed but they don’t care if they are; they may not want certain people to be harmed but are too weak of mind to resist the orders that do harm (i.e. the Milgram experiment); and in cases like this they may honestly believe that black people are not capable of running their own lives and need to be taken care of.
That’s evil (and incredibly evil – among the most evil things ever done, in my view), but it doesn’t require “animus of thought”, it seems to me.
What you describe is “animus of thought”, but I think it’s highly likely that some slave owners had this “affection” even for resisting and uncooperative slaves, honestly believing they were helping them by punishing and disciplining them.
Incredible evil stuff – really, really awful. Atrocities and brutality and some of the worst oppression in human history. And not always, in my view, requiring “animus of thought”.
I would evaluate this if such evidence was presented. Right now, without such evidence, making this claim is definitely racist, it seems to me.
Right now it’s a very easy call. If different evidence is presented, I’m happy to evaluate that. Based on what’s put forward currently by those claiming black people are inherently intellectually inferior due to genes it doesn’t come close, and I feel fine calling these claims racist.
This part should read “they may not want certain people to be harmed but they don’t care if they are”, as in they don’t care one way or the other.
Well, when posters like CP start making noises about owning black people, controlling black people and using the statistics of the group (as they see them) to make judgements about any given individual then you might have a point.
I don’t understand what you’re saying here.
…and yet, in the first sentence I quoted, you called such an opponent a Holocaust Denier :). Obviously you see the benefit that the rest of us see: trying to tapdance around the term makes the conversation clunky and unwieldy, and avoiding the precise, accurate term has no benefit.