What word would you prefer?
But…racists are stupid. Quite stupid. :dubious:
They also do a REALLY bad job promoting their views.
However, as you know:
-
Non-racists != “Leftists.” Few leftists are racists, but most non-racists are not leftists.
-
Racism is only the belief-system under discussion here depending on “faith”. The burden of proof is properly on the racists.
I’m not sure what you mean by “racists,” “non-racists,” and “Leftists.” For me, one of the basic principles of Leftism is the “egalitarian hypothesis,” i.e. the claim that genetic predisposition for intelligence and other important psychological traits is distributed equally among all racial and ethnic groups.
You are of course free to offer your own definition.
Given that the overwhelming evidence shows the Leftist position to be false, it’s the Leftist position which relies upon faith at this point.
I think what NDD says should be self evident: when Europeans peacefully sailed into non-white territories to lay claim to the natural resources that God had provided for them, they encountered people that were much more prone to criminal activity than white people were.
Bullshit.
Death threats directed toward 16 year old atheist.
Thread on same
And this is no isolated incident.
Waitaminnit, first thing, where the fuck are you getting that definition?! LW politics and thought had its origins in the practically monoracial environment of 18th- and 19th-Century Europe. It has nothing to do with race essentially, except that its moral and political premises are all about socioeconomic equality in general, and therefore mandate racial equality by most interpretations. (Most. Even without getting into “National Socialism” or the debate over whether it even deserves the s-word, I recall that in Australia in the 19th Century, the Socialist Party ran on a xenophobic Chinese-exclusion platform.) In any case, even WRT individuals or social classes within a racially homogeneous society, leftist thought does not depend on any presumption of equal genetic endowments, it never has.
Are you making an economic/political or a racial argument here? The first could perhaps still be maintained, but there is no “overwhelming evidence” of any genetically-determined differences between “racial” groups however defined.
Yep.
For the record, I completely understand that Asian people find the term “oriental” to be very offensive, and I believe that it shouldn’t be used for that reason. But I also think they’re being damn silly to insist on that in the first place. Ah well.
brazil84, or New Deal Democrat if you’re so inclined as well, I have a question for you:
What was the journey of discovery for you to learn that certain races are inferior? Why did you get started reading racialist theories? Did you used to believe differently? What hypothesis did you set out with, and what facts convinced you your currently-held theory is true?
It all began one terrible night after an ill-fated trip to Red Lobster.
People also get angry when they see your archaic, delusional viewpoint and how it systematically oppresses others. You are actively harmful to people. Why wouldn’t that piss me off?
I expected to feel guilty for starting this. Incidentally, I don’t feel guilty at all.
New Deal Democrat sure likes to wallow in the ignorance.
I’m not sure what your point is. Why is it so important to point out that median black IQ is lower than median white IQ? Are you saying that we have so thoroughly eliminated racism that we no longer need affirmative action and that all the existing disparity between blakcs and whites is the result of disparities in IQ? Are you saying that the IQ gap means that there will be a persistent socioeconomic gap that cannot be bridged by government programs over the long run so we might as well let them wallow in poverty?
I don’t for one second believe that we have eliminated racism to the point that even SOME academic affirmative action is no longer warranted. Frankly I would be perfectly fine with leaving the small number of affirmative action minority students in place and getting rid of the massive numbers of white students who underperform asian students.
I don’t think our society is ready to revert bay to 19th century solutions for poverty. Perhaps you could convince me that the better policy for combatting poverty is 1996 style welfare reform in other areas but I simply have not been convinced that blacks are so dumb that they cannot aspire to self sufficient American mediocrity.
The boy who shouted that the emperor has no clothes shouted something so obviously true that everyone immediately agreed. I don’t know that your statements are quite as obviously true. Especially all that stuff about accelerated evolution over the last 10,000 years.
Some of these men are my best friends and they are not immoral so much as they are amoral. They do not really care that they are causing the destruction of $10 for every $5 they make so long as they make the $5. Their role in the marketplace does not demand that they consider the cost to society, only the cost to themselves. As a matter of fact I don’t know that they would turn away from $5 profit even at the cost of $100 to society. The free market doesn not naturally internalize those costs.
I’m not sure why people are offended by the use of the term either except that it is so frequently used by people who mean offense.
And now the not-so-genteel and very blatantly dishonest brazil84. I knew it was gonna show up here sooner or later. :rolleyes:
Of course that’s what he’s saying. That was the whole political point of The Bell Curve, remember? “Stop wasting time and money to improve those who cannot be improved,” that’s all it came down to.
Genes matter.
But race doesn’t, not scientifically; it isn’t real.
I’m not going to waste time arguing semantics with you. I’m using the term “Leftist” in a certain way – to mean a certain group of people on the political Left in the West today. One of the core beliefs of this group is the egalitarian hypothesis. If you want to refer to this group in some other way, feel free.
The overwhelming evidence indicates that the egalitarian hypothesis is wrong. I’ve outlined much of the evidence on a blog post elsewhere.
Whenever I read nonsense like this, these two comics always come to mind. How people can ignore centuries of social differences and hinge everything on unproven genetics is beyond me.
I’m not sure what you mean by “inferior,” but assuming you mean differences in intelligence, for the most part it was my learning how to think critically, i.e. learning how to think rationally about issues without letting my own wishes and emotions color my judgment.
As I learned how to think critically, it became clear that the ridiculous explanations I had been taught for the various racial gaps were just that – ridiculous.
Now I have a couple questions for you:
First, do you believe in the egalitarian hypothesis?
Second, if the egalitarian hypothesis were false to a small but significant extent, how would the world be different from the way it is today?
Third, would you rather live in a world where the egalitarian hypothesis were true or false?