It doesn't matter how many times scientific racism gets debunked, there will always be someone ready to sell it all over again and then complain, all over again, that their "truth" is being shouted down for political reasons.

(September 1, 2018 at 8:46 am)Khemikal Wrote: It doesn't matter how many times scientific racism gets debunked, there will always be someone ready to sell it all over again and then complain, all over again, that their "truth" is being shouted down for political reasons.

How is admitting there may be differences in different races, racist?

So long as scientific information isn't used to justify hatred or discrimination against a specific group of people, it's just information.

You seem to be the one turning it into an issue of hate.

(September 1, 2018 at 8:56 am)PRJA93 Wrote:

(September 1, 2018 at 8:46 am)Khemikal Wrote: It doesn't matter how many times scientific racism gets debunked, there will always be someone ready to sell it all over again and then complain, all over again, that their "truth" is being shouted down for political reasons.

How is admitting there may be differences in different races, racist?

I'll give you an example, from the thread.  The heritability of IQ.  The claim that genetics (race, in a racists eyes) account for 70-80% of differences on IQ scores, the remainder being environmental (15%ish) and unquantified.  That's true..but it's selectively mined.  Its true -within- a control group called High-SES.  High socioeconomic status.  The same study, in the Low-SES control group, found a direct inversion of the relationship.  Estimated heritability was only 10%.  

Scientific racism points to the first half of their finding, omits the other, and uses that as a justification for an argument known as "the inevitability of black poverty".  The notion that a "difference" between the races, in this case iq, leads to a pronounced demographic trend in poverty.  It does this..because it's not science, it's just racism.

Quote:So long as scientific information isn't used to justify hatred or discrimination against a specific group of people, it's just information.

See above.

Quote:You seem to be the one turning it into an issue of hate.

Sure.  

Would you like another example?

(September 1, 2018 at 9:06 am)Khemikal Wrote:

(September 1, 2018 at 8:56 am)PRJA93 Wrote: How is admitting there may be differences in different races, racist?

I'll give you an example, from the thread.  The heritability of IQ.  The claim that genetics (race, in a racists eyes) account for 70-80% of differences on IQ scores, the remainder being environmental (15%ish) and unquantified.  That's true..but it's selectively mined.  Its true -within- a control group called High-SES.  High socioeconomic status.  The same study, in the Low-SES control group, found a direct inversion of the relationship.  Estimated heritability was only 10%.  

Scientific racism points to the first half of their finding, omits the other, and uses that as a justification for an argument known as "the inevitability of black poverty".   It does this..because it's not science, it's just racism.

Quote:So long as scientific information isn't used to justify hatred or discrimination against a specific group of people, it's just information.

See above.

Quote:You seem to be the one turning it into an issue of hate.

Sure.  

Okay, and maybe what you're saying is perfectly true, maybe it isn't. I really don't know and don't care. The point I'm making is information is just information. Racism comes in when someone uses that information to discriminate against a certain group or justify hatred for a group. That's all. So if we agree fine.

And yea, you are the one turning it into hate. Even if it were true that people of one racial group were less intelligent than another because of hereditary factors - that's not racist. That would just be a statement of fact, if it were true. I'm not saying it is with any group and I'd be hard-pressed to be convinced of that, but we have to be careful about simply noting differences between people versus using those differences as a justification for actual racism. If you agree, then cool.

(September 1, 2018 at 9:13 am)PRJA93 Wrote: Okay, and maybe what you're saying is perfectly true, maybe it isn't. I really don't know and don't care. The point I'm making is information is just information. Racism comes in when someone uses that information to discriminate against a certain group or justify hatred for a group. That's all. So if we agree fine.

 
We do agree, the trouble is that scientific racism serves no other purpose, and isn't science.  

Quote:And yea, you are the one turning it into hate. Even if it were true that people of one racial group were less intelligent than another because of hereditary factors - that's not racist. That would just be a statement of fact, if it were true. I'm not saying it is with any group and I'd be hard-pressed to be convinced of that, but we have to be careful about simply noting differences between people versus using those differences as a justification for actual racism. If you agree, then cool.

You mean, if people weren't making further claims on the back of scientific racism that they are making..both in the wider world and in thread..it wouldn't be racist?  

Sure, okay, but people are making those further claims on the back of scientific racism in the wider world and in the thread..and it is racist...so...?

People pointing at these things aren't "simply noting difference"...and the differences they're noting, tend to be some pretty ridiculous and thoroughly dishonest shit. Though it helps, massively, to provide cover for their racism..and racism in general, to say that, and for them to convince others of that. To frame the narrative, avoid scrutiny, and use the contents of that lie to delegitimize positions opposing racism.

(September 1, 2018 at 9:16 am)Khemikal Wrote:

(September 1, 2018 at 9:13 am)PRJA93 Wrote: Okay, and maybe what you're saying is perfectly true, maybe it isn't. I really don't know and don't care. The point I'm making is information is just information. Racism comes in when someone uses that information to discriminate against a certain group or justify hatred for a group. That's all. So if we agree fine.

 
We do agree, the trouble is that scientific racism serves no other purpose, and isn't science.  

Quote:And yea, you are the one turning it into hate. Even if it were true that people of one racial group were less intelligent than another because of hereditary factors - that's not racist. That would just be a statement of fact, if it were true. I'm not saying it is with any group and I'd be hard-pressed to be convinced of that, but we have to be careful about simply noting differences between people versus using those differences as a justification for actual racism. If you agree, then cool.

You mean, if people weren't making further claims on the back of scientific racism that they are making..both in the wider world and in thread..it wouldn't be racist?  

Sure, okay, but people are making those further claims on the back of scientific racism in the wider world and in the thread..and it is racist...so...?

People pointing at these things aren't "simply noting difference"...and the differences they're noting, tend to be some pretty ridiculous and thoroughly dishonest shit.  Though it helps, massively, to provide cover for their racism..and racism in general, to say that, and for them to convince others of that.  To frame the narrative, avoid scrutiny, and use the contents of that lie to delegitimize positions opposing racism.

Someone promoting false information makes them misinformed or maybe dishonest, not necessarily racist.

I think we should all be careful about throwing that term around just like we should all be careful about the information we share with one another. At least if we're in pursuit of more knowledge, which I think most people on this forum, including you and me, are.

(September 1, 2018 at 9:26 am)PRJA93 Wrote: Someone promoting false information makes them misinformed or maybe dishonest, not necessarily racist.

A person promoting scientific racism is either a racist..or has absorbed normalizing propaganda.  I like to assume the latter until someone either admits to, or convinces me..of the former.  

Quote:I think we should all be careful about throwing that term around just like we should all be careful about the information we share with one another. At least if we're in pursuit of more knowledge, which I think most people on this forum, including you and me, are.

Right, we should only call racist things racist.  Scientific racism is racist, and racists are racist.  The normalizing propaganda of white supremacy, is racist, people who sell it..are racists.

The inevitability of black poverty by comparative IQ, is racist.  Equally problematic, since we're all seekers of knowledge, is that it's untrue. We know this bny reference to the same studies that racists collectively mine and misappropriate, and even more horrendous..is that those studies show us that segregation and inequality are actually creating the metric, that racists then point to as an excuse for the racism...that has caused segregation and inequality...which expresses itself -as- the metric.

It's tight little knot.

Wow. Don't know if I'll ever catch back up on this thread but the stamina you both show is phenomenal.

There does seem to be a desire to bleach the racism out of racism using new improved sciency talk. Is that motivated entirely by a desire for white comfort? Sure looks that way.

It's a contender for the "damned atheists" thread..because this most recent push was brewed on popular skeptic channels as they competed with each other for views in a crowded genre.

It's that spring that peterson tapped into, as well, fwiw.

(September 1, 2018 at 8:46 am)Khemikal Wrote: It doesn't matter how many times scientific racism gets debunked, there will always be someone ready to sell it all over again and then complain, all over again, that their "truth" is being shouted down for political reasons.

Let's start with once, Khemikal.

I've been careful to document the fact trail by which I've drawn my conclusions.  Nor have I presented them with any malice toward black people or anyone else.

I have to say, though, that I find it ironic that you'd put the word "truth" in quotes, despite not bothering at any point to demonstrate that anything that's been said (or shown) has been untruthful.

It seems very much that my perception of the PC Left, as expressed by you as an obvious member of that group, has been reinforced.  In this thread, you've tried every possible trick you could to malign me, to control what topics I could feel free to discuss by an implicit threat of highly negative group associations. You've questioned my motivations, and undermined the importance of my opinions based on my racial identity (as the Big Bad Wolf, apparently).  What you haven't done is provide any facts to support your positions, or any coherent response to any of the facts I've used to support mine.

What's worse is that in your zeal to demonize me, you've overlooked the fact that my conclusions, if considered with regard to policy, would serve to improve the lot of black people in America much better than mere lip service-- for example, that health care, drug treatment, and child care programs would be the obvious first step in improving IQ and reducing income inequality.