Peterson's 12 Rules For Life, have you heard of this?

[The Grand Nudger]

One wonders if there's anything that wouldn't reenforce your preexisting beliefs, at this point.

[bennyboy]

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%.  

Why wouldn't you lead with this? Links, please. Also. . . I still don't think "control group" means what you think it means.

Would you like another example?

You aren't talking to me, but I can say that for me, the answer would be a definite yes.

---

One wonders if there's anything that wouldn't reenforce your preexisting beliefs, at this point.

Yeah, dude.

You chilling the fuck out and using real facts to support your opinion, instead of throwing every epithet in the book at me because the facts that I have so far been able to find don't sit well with you.

[The Grand Nudger]

What do you mean why wouldn't I lead with it?  That's the second time I've shot down your affinity for scientific racism by mentioning control groups used in IQ studies.

The trouble, Benny, is that you don't have facts, you have racism in search of a redeeming justification. Scientific racism won't provide you with that, nor will complaints of white victimization, nor will parodying or just outright bullshitting about pc or sj platforms.

Nothing will, lol.

[EgoDeath]

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.  

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.

You seem to be misunderstanding things a bit. To think that just because some person believes in an inaccurate piece of information that some racists also believe in makes said person racist is quite presumptive. It probably shows a lack of critical thinking but doesn't necessarily show that someone is racist. But you seem to be dead set on this narrative as you've already gone back and forth with Benny for some time now, as Whateverist pointed out, so I doubt I'll be able to get you to see the fallacious way you're arguing your point.

But yes, I do agree we should call out racists when and where we see them. Racism is an intellectually unsound way of judging people and I have never subscribed to that. Good luck in your ongoing feud with benny, it seems neither of you are going to concede on anything any time soon.

The thing is, I don't really think there's any racism going on here. I think there's a serious lack of communication and possibly some inaccurate information being spread. Though as I've said before I'm not super interested in getting to the bottom of something like IQ in the different races it was just an idea that seemed relevant to the discussion that was happening. I attempted to make a point, the points been made. How you receive the point is not up to me unless I've been unclear in some way. Beyond that I don't have much more to contribute.

[The Grand Nudger]

You seem to be misunderstanding things a bit. To think that just because some person believes in an inaccurate piece of information that some racists also believe in makes said person racist is quite presumptive. It probably shows a lack of critical thinking but doesn't necessarily show that someone is racist. But you seem to be dead set on this narrative as you've already gone back and forth with Benny for some time now, as Whateverist pointed out, so I doubt I'll be able to get you to see the fallacious way you're arguing your point.

I've already commented - at length- on the fact that the normalizing language of white supremacy has been very effective at spreading itself beyond the confines of the overtly racist.  That otherwise non racist people hear it, don't understand that they're being groomed, and unthinkingly repeat it.  I've given multiple examples, linked to studies to that effect, pointed out when it's being presented in this thread and demonstrated that the specific examples were deeply misinformed.  

That's the field of play, though. You can debunk some racist's bullshit from here to sunday, but all they'll do is retort "hurr dur, pc left, sjws! My rights, my rights, I'm being stigmatized, there are differences!". It's a fundamental disparity of effort, and normalization depends on it as a tactic.

But yes, I do agree we should call out racists when and where we see them. Racism is an intellectually unsound way of judging people and I have never subscribed to that. Good luck in your ongoing feud with benny, it seems neither of you are going to concede on anything any time soon.

That's where you'd be wrong.  I initially thought that he'd just absorbed this shit on accident through many of the outlets he's expressed interest in which have been in the business of normalization.  Peterson was the match.

I've conceded, after many many pages, that I was wrong.  Mostly because he decided to drop the whole "hows that racist" thing and just call himself a racist.  Fine, so be it.  I was wrong, and I'm not really happy about it, or happy with having defended him against that accusation earlier in thread.  

The thing is, I don't really think there's any racism going on here. I think there's a serious lack of communication and possibly some inaccurate information being spread. Though as I've said before I'm not super interested in getting to the bottom of something like IQ in the different races it was just an idea that seemed relevant to the discussion that was happening. I attempted to make a point, the points been made. How you receive the point is not up to me unless I've been unclear in some way. Beyond that I don't have much more to contribute.

60 pages of communication begs to differ.  You're not interested in getting to the bottom of the issue of scientific racism as it relates to IQ?  It is relevant, but you'd kind of have to be interested to getting to the bottom of it to make an informed comment or point.  

Don't you think?

[bennyboy]

What do you mean why wouldn't I lead with it?  That's the second time I've shot down your affinity for scientific racism by mentioning control groups used in IQ studies.

The trouble, Benny, is that you don't have facts, you have racism in search of a redeeming justification.  Scientific racism won't provide you with that, nor will complaints of white victimization, nor will parodying or just outright bullshitting about pc or sj platforms.

Nothing will, lol.

Okay, let's go ahead and examine the truth of this being the "second time I've shot down your affinity for scientific racism"

---

In some metrics, black people at least in the US, clearly ARE inferior-- in average IQ scores for example.  Then we have to ask why-- is it because the IQ tests are biased toward white participants?  Or because socioeconomic conditions lead to bad education?  Or because  of differential intelligences (intellectual tasks vs. social skills vs. physical intelligence), and only a narrow range of those being tested?

And then, we have to ask-- EVEN IF there are actual racial differences, should it matter at all with regard to rights of citizenship?  I'd certainly argue not.

This is the first I mentioned IQ scores in this thread.  Let's look at all your posts since then, and see if your current claim, that you keep debunking me, is correct:

#613: you headslap and say: "You're not just reading the alt right script..at this point, you're following the playbook too."

#615: you ignored the data I'd posted, and talked about networking. . . then said I had "swallowed the koolaid"

#618: you claimed that trying to raise IQ by reducing childhood health issues was pointless, because of the networking problem

#620: I think this is what you call "debunking."  You issued a truly incoherent sentence talking about controlled groups and smoking, having been divorced, or or possessing a credit card.  In the post immediately following, I told you that I couldn't understand your language, and asked you to clarify.  You most definitively did NOT produce any factual evidence supporting whatever claim it was that sentence was supposed to be about.

#622: You responded to my request for clarification, not with clarification but with "Go figure out for yourself, again..as you implored peopled to do with racist mouth-droppings."

#624: You ask ME to explain what a control group is, and still do not clarify your sentence from #620, and still do not produce any factual evidence supporting whatever claim it was that sentence in #620 was supposed to be about.

#626: You ramble about the pc movement and about politicians and celebrities

#628: You go on again about my "white victimization complex" and tell me to own my racism.

#630: You tell me I really am a racist, and tell me to stop "normalizing racism"

#632: You tell me a "racist is a racist," right after being told that 3 month babies show preference for same-race faces.  Then you call me a "slimy piece of shit."

#634: You tell me I've wasted your time and squandered whatever respect you had for me.

#641: You claim that "scientific racism" has been debunked a plural number of times

#643: You finally produce facts. . . kind of. . . but no link.

---

So you spewed out some garbled, drunken nonsense, which you refused to clarify upon request, and for which you provided no link or image.  Then you raged and called me names for 7 posts.  Then you finally gave something that looks like meaningful stats, but didn't bother linking your source.

You've also been repeatedly calling charts of IQ tests and SAT scores "scientific racism."  This is dumb for two reasons-- first of all, they are not that; they are clearly just test scores. Second, I myself, right from the moment I introduced the topic of IQ (i.e. in both post #612 and AGAIN in post #617) openly suggested that there were multiple ways to look at the IQ numbers:

There are several possibilities:
1) The test is bullshit (either it's culturally biased, or it doesn't actually measure intelligence that matters)
2) The results are either a lie, or are reported in a way so biased that it constitutes fraud.
3) Black people, on average, are in fact not as intelligent as white people, on average, and this hurts their chance to generate income.

This is me just constantly pushing the right-wing agenda, huh? Yeah, because those are the kinds of options that White Supremacists usually talk about when engaging in this kind of material?

[The Grand Nudger]

A smart man once said that people should investigate claims for themselves.  I suggest you take his advice.

[EgoDeath]

60 pages of communication begs to differ.  You're not interested in getting to the bottom of the issue of scientific racism as it relates to IQ?  It is relevant, but you'd kind of have to be interested to getting to the bottom of it to make an informed comment or point.  

Don't you think?

Actually, no, I'm not. I treat people as individuals, on an individual basis. I'm not too concerned with statistics when I make conversation with someone or bump into an acquaintance at the market, believe it or not.

My only point was that spreading inaccurate information regarding race doesn't necessarily make someone racist. I was making a point about identity politics (one of the few things I tend to agree with Peterson on). I can make the same point regarding pointing out differences between the sexes or something else entirely. If you don't feel like this applies to your situation, cool. I was making a very minor point, but you seem to be very interested in going back and forth with people who do no completely concede to your view.

So yea, good luck with that.

[bennyboy]

A smart man once said that people should investigate claims for themselves.  I suggest you take his advice.

How about. . . you are making a claim, so back it up?

Seriously, dude, stop the fucking nonsense. I've given you plenty of chances to set the record straight, and you've done nothing but sling shit.

[The Grand Nudger]

Actually, no, I'm not. I treat people as individuals, on an individual basis. I'm not too concerned with statistics when I make conversation with someone or bump into an acquaintance at the market, believe it or not.

My only point was that spreading inaccurate information regarding race doesn't necessarily make someone racist. I was making a point about identity politics. If you don't feel like this applies to your situation, cool. I was making a very minor point, but you seem to be very interested in going back and forth with people who do no completely concede to your view.

So yea, good luck with that.  

Your point does apply to identity politics, in a major..not minor, way.  Normalizing propaganda is the underlying rationalization for identity politics, having created that dynamic with misleading, inadequate, or inaccurate support..the manufacturers of those identity politics then lay the blame -for- identity politics on those who oppose their racist ideology.

Levying charges of reverse racism, discrimination, abrogation of rights, denial of pride, stigmatization, and a loss of esteem.

It's the social equivalent of the economic policy of exploding a deficit, blaming the opposition for having done so, and then pleading for fiscal responsibility through the destruction of the safety net. Even in that effort, the same identity politics and racial myths are heavily employed.