6 ms·

> We're almost certainly going to discover less palatable differences between races -- e.g. around intelligence. So whenever that is, I'll be eager to discover

> We're almost certainly going to discover less palatable differences between races -- e.g. around intelligence. So whenever that is, I'll be eager to discover which phenotypic traits represent themselves on the spectrum of intelligence. I also wonder what concentration of melanin correlates with laziness and also about the particular hair texture and eye shape that can indicate poor driving skills. We can also demystify the relationship between nose size and financial proficiency (after factoring out penis size, of course).

dionidium 10y ago
Pick any metric. It doesn't matter. The position that differences aren't possible is a position that crumbles when the evidence shows otherwise. My position, on the other hand, is that all people should be afforded the same basic rights, regardless of their differences. Note that my position does not hinge on crossing my fingers and hoping that the future of science corresponds with my sense of morality. My position weathers any outcome.
- homogeneous 10y ago
  > My position, on the other hand, is that all people should be afforded the same basic rights, regardless of their differences. Great, you've espoused the ostensible position of every person who isn't a self-identified racist. > The position that differences aren't possible Differences are clearly possible and readily apparent, my point is that any definitive conclusions drawn from correlations to "race" are of dubious merit because our racial definitions (as defined by the government and thus as it relates to policy) are imprecise heuristic amalgamations of apparent phenotypes. Skin tone, hair texture, facial structure in addition to language pretty much constitute the entirety of racial identity, so the impulse to group abstract polygenic characteristics like intelligence into what is essentially an individual's outward appearance doesn't lead to much in the way of profound insight. It's like trying to draw conclusions about road safety by measuring the correlation between car color and rate of receipt of speeding citations.
  - dionidium 10y ago
    I think it's clear from your first comment which of us feels superior. Smugness seems to pass as argument in this debate. I was clearly distinguishing between those who hold that position because they think there are no significant differences and those who would maintain that position if uncomfortable differences were discovered.
    - homogeneous 10y ago
      > I think it's clear from your first comment which of us feels superior. Smugness seems to pass as argument in this debate. Not sure what you're referring to here but I did not use the word superior or make any references to superiority in any of my replies, but I think it's ironic that you accuse me of using smugness as an argument when you only responded to the first sentence of my reply (to tell me I'm smug) instead of the paragraph describing the argument. > I was clearly distinguishing between those who hold that position because they think there are no significant differences and those who would maintain that position if uncomfortable differences were discovered. What I'm telling you is that "those who hold that position because they think there are no significant differences" is a strawman. Once again, everyone except self-identified racists (they do exist) claim that all people should be treated equally and it is fallacious for you to claim a monopoly on this position because you believe it to be an inevitable truth that some races are genetically predisposed to stupidity.
      - dionidium 10y ago
        Apologies. There's another commenter in this thread focused on superiority and I think I confused you two. I would like to highlight how this argument engenders emotional hyperbole, though. My position is that there are likely uncomfortable genetic differences to be revealed ahead. You characterize this view as the "inevitable truth that some races are genetically predisposed to stupidity." I'll just have to leave it to others to decide if I said anything at all like that.
        homogeneous 10y ago
- delazeur 10y ago
  False dichotomy. People who currently assume that there is no correlation between skin pigmentation and intelligence are unlikely to stop believing in equal human rights if genetic studies were to prove them wrong. On the other hand, people who believe that there is such a correlation have a convenient excuse to consider themselves objectively superior while smugly granting rights to the inferior races.
  - dionidium 10y ago
    It's always the people most against innocuous suggestions about the possibility of differences that use words like "superiority." That is your hang-up, not mine.
    - delazeur 10y ago
      Look, if you're going to go around blowing white supremacist dog whistles then you don't get to act surprised when people call you a white supremacist. Is it possible that you're not really a white supremacist, and that you're just leaving your mind open to whatever the science determines? Maybe. But if that's the case, the burden is on you to convince us clearly and thoroughly that you are not a racist.
      - dionidium 10y ago
        Yours is an unfortunate if predictable reply that demonstrates how (generally) broken this discussion is. I don't think it's possible to dispassionately read into my comment what you have. You're plainly layering a bunch of your own stuff on top of my argument.
        delazeur 10y ago
        > You're plainly layering a bunch of your own stuff on top of my argument. There is baggage associated with your argument, and it didn't originate from me. You can't deny that. What you can do is acknowledge the baggage and disavow it. You have not done so, which leads me to suspect that you might be comfortable with the baggage. As far as I can tell, all you have contributed to this conversation are the assertions that inherent racial differences "almost certainly" exist and that those who disagree have a world view that is inconsistent with universal basic rights, followed by affectedly exasperated claims that anyone who disagrees with you is simply too encumbered by hang-ups and complexes to understand your reality. Do you understand that even if your position is genuinely non-racist, you have completely failed to communicate that? Part of communication is recognizing the broader context in which our words will be interpreted and addressing that context. We do not have the privilege of communicating in a vacuum. Put another way, and charitably assuming that you are not a white supremacist, what's different between what you have said and what a white supremacist would say if they were trying to be oblique about it?

dionidium 10y ago

Pick any metric. It doesn't matter. The position that differences aren't possible is a position that crumbles when the evidence shows otherwise. My position, on the other hand, is that all people should be afforded the same basic rights, regardless of their differences. Note that my position does not hinge on crossing my fingers and hoping that the future of science corresponds with my sense of morality. My position weathers any outcome.

homogeneous 10y ago
> My position, on the other hand, is that all people should be afforded the same basic rights, regardless of their differences. Great, you've espoused the ostensible position of every person who isn't a self-identified racist. > The position that differences aren't possible Differences are clearly possible and readily apparent, my point is that any definitive conclusions drawn from correlations to "race" are of dubious merit because our racial definitions (as defined by the government and thus as it relates to policy) are imprecise heuristic amalgamations of apparent phenotypes. Skin tone, hair texture, facial structure in addition to language pretty much constitute the entirety of racial identity, so the impulse to group abstract polygenic characteristics like intelligence into what is essentially an individual's outward appearance doesn't lead to much in the way of profound insight. It's like trying to draw conclusions about road safety by measuring the correlation between car color and rate of receipt of speeding citations.
- dionidium 10y ago
  I think it's clear from your first comment which of us feels superior. Smugness seems to pass as argument in this debate. I was clearly distinguishing between those who hold that position because they think there are no significant differences and those who would maintain that position if uncomfortable differences were discovered.
  - homogeneous 10y ago
    > I think it's clear from your first comment which of us feels superior. Smugness seems to pass as argument in this debate. Not sure what you're referring to here but I did not use the word superior or make any references to superiority in any of my replies, but I think it's ironic that you accuse me of using smugness as an argument when you only responded to the first sentence of my reply (to tell me I'm smug) instead of the paragraph describing the argument. > I was clearly distinguishing between those who hold that position because they think there are no significant differences and those who would maintain that position if uncomfortable differences were discovered. What I'm telling you is that "those who hold that position because they think there are no significant differences" is a strawman. Once again, everyone except self-identified racists (they do exist) claim that all people should be treated equally and it is fallacious for you to claim a monopoly on this position because you believe it to be an inevitable truth that some races are genetically predisposed to stupidity.
    - dionidium 10y ago
      Apologies. There's another commenter in this thread focused on superiority and I think I confused you two. I would like to highlight how this argument engenders emotional hyperbole, though. My position is that there are likely uncomfortable genetic differences to be revealed ahead. You characterize this view as the "inevitable truth that some races are genetically predisposed to stupidity." I'll just have to leave it to others to decide if I said anything at all like that.
      - homogeneous 10y ago
delazeur 10y ago
False dichotomy. People who currently assume that there is no correlation between skin pigmentation and intelligence are unlikely to stop believing in equal human rights if genetic studies were to prove them wrong. On the other hand, people who believe that there is such a correlation have a convenient excuse to consider themselves objectively superior while smugly granting rights to the inferior races.
- dionidium 10y ago
  It's always the people most against innocuous suggestions about the possibility of differences that use words like "superiority." That is your hang-up, not mine.
  - delazeur 10y ago
    Look, if you're going to go around blowing white supremacist dog whistles then you don't get to act surprised when people call you a white supremacist. Is it possible that you're not really a white supremacist, and that you're just leaving your mind open to whatever the science determines? Maybe. But if that's the case, the burden is on you to convince us clearly and thoroughly that you are not a racist.
    - dionidium 10y ago
      Yours is an unfortunate if predictable reply that demonstrates how (generally) broken this discussion is. I don't think it's possible to dispassionately read into my comment what you have. You're plainly layering a bunch of your own stuff on top of my argument.
      - delazeur 10y ago
        > You're plainly layering a bunch of your own stuff on top of my argument. There is baggage associated with your argument, and it didn't originate from me. You can't deny that. What you can do is acknowledge the baggage and disavow it. You have not done so, which leads me to suspect that you might be comfortable with the baggage. As far as I can tell, all you have contributed to this conversation are the assertions that inherent racial differences "almost certainly" exist and that those who disagree have a world view that is inconsistent with universal basic rights, followed by affectedly exasperated claims that anyone who disagrees with you is simply too encumbered by hang-ups and complexes to understand your reality. Do you understand that even if your position is genuinely non-racist, you have completely failed to communicate that? Part of communication is recognizing the broader context in which our words will be interpreted and addressing that context. We do not have the privilege of communicating in a vacuum. Put another way, and charitably assuming that you are not a white supremacist, what's different between what you have said and what a white supremacist would say if they were trying to be oblique about it?