5 ms·

It appears that Trump won because of... You missed the point I was making - I was speculating why electoral predictions were wrong, not speculating why Trump w

It appears that Trump won because of... You missed the point I was making - I was speculating why electoral predictions were wrong, not speculating why Trump won. I rather hope liberals don't develop empathy for the wealthy Americans who handed the election to Trump. Empathy is truly a destructive force in the world. We feel far more empathy for those close to us, those who look like us, those who are blessed with attractiveness. If we follow our empathy Indians and Chinese will remain poor just to help wealthy white Americans maintain their social status. Wait, what? I thought you liked to present yourself as a male- and white-supremacist of the long, proud scientific racism tradition. No, your (and those of other likeminded folks) attacks on me are not representative of how I present myself. They simply represent what you believe to be the easiest attack mode. I have also expressed a belief that black women are innately "better" than others in certain qualities that I value: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8300225 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8300225 That particular belief has explicitly motivated more action on my part than any of the beliefs you criticize me for. Does that make me a black female supremacist? Somehow I suspect you will be unwilling to apply your original logic to this case, and in fact you'll apply some weird reverse logic to support the same conclusion.

pron 10y ago
The false speculations -- shared by both liberals and conservative, BTW -- were the result of the same blindness of the elites that has led to the outcome. If you've read those who weren't blind, like Thomas Frank,they saw it coming (although I think even Frank thought that the blind establishment would prevail in this cycle). I can't tell if you're joking in the rest of your comment or not, but as to qualities you value, the test is simple: are those the qualities that you'd attribute to those you consider your social equals or superiors, or, in other words, are those the qualities you truly believe give people most social power (status and influence) in your own society? One of the distinguishing characteristics of scientific racism, from its modern rise in the late 19th century has always been to attribute "good" qualities to the races considered inferior as an attempt to paint itself not as a hate group but as simply the objective understanding of the natural order: every species has its good and bad qualities, and so does every race; every species has its place, and so does every race. Of course, scientific racism has always attributed to its believers those very qualities that happen to coincide with most power, because it's not about "better" or "worse", but naturally deserving of power or not. In other words, I smiled when I saw your "black female supremacist" comment, because I've read the exact same thing by writers in late 19th century many years ago in school, that I can't tell if you're ironically referencing classic scientific racism tropes or not. In any event, the view you're presenting here is actually called scientific racism. It is not an "attack on you" by any means, just as calling me socialist isn't an attack on me. I believe that if you read some of the vast scientific racism literature, you'll gladly identify yourself as a member (unless realizing how familiar and old your opinions are would make you understand how far they are from true heterodoxy). BTW, attributing Jews with qualities that actually do coincide with social power is also a trademark feature of antisemitism, scientific or otherwise. It is crucial for (or at least, the habit of) nativist/racist movements to paint themselves as both deserving of power as well as victims, at once weak and powerful. So if you want to follow up with a question of whether or not you're a Jewish supremacist, you can spare it. I've read it all in 100+-year-old books. I don't know if empathy is primarily destructive or not, but I still pity those who lack it.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  Yes, when I choose to date a woman (in part because of her beauty), I consider her my social equal. I also believe beauty gains a woman status and influence. Do you disagree with these two claims? (In fact, I consider beauty to be one of the most underappreciated virtues in the modern world. As a weird tangent, one of the major things I prefer about NYC to Bombay is how NYC weights beauty over wealth.) I'm beginning to think that what you call "scientific racism" is what I'd simply call "science" applied to humans. Do you believe it differs? If so, how? I suspect that question will be dodged. I suspect you are using the term "scientific racism" rather than "science" in order to create equivalence between scientists and "hate groups", and imply I feel hatred towards some group. That's definitely an implication I object to. So if you want to follow up with a question of whether or not you're a Jewish supremacist, you can spare it. I've read it all in 100+-year-old books. As I suspected, all possible viewpoints I might hold result in you believing I'm a white supremacist. Have fun with the highbrow dismissal and vague hints that some uncited authority supports your views.
  - pron 10y ago
    > when I choose to date a woman (in part because of her beauty), I consider her my social equal. I also believe beauty gains a woman status and influence. Do you disagree with these two claims? I have no idea whether you consider the women you date to be your social equal or not -- it is none of my business -- but I don't think it is necessarily the case that every man (or woman) considers their romantic partners their social equal. As to the other claim, I wholeheartedly disagree. There is no question that beauty is a source of power. But you'd need to be blind to think that it is a greater source of power in our society than other qualities. Note, also, how beautiful women are often brought down (just a pretty face etc.), whereas powerful men are not discussed in the same way (nah, he's just an ugly billionaire). > I'm beginning to think that what you call "scientific racism" is what I'd simply call "science" applied to humans. Do you believe it differs? If so, how? What "I call" scientific racism is what is known by historians as scientific racism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism. The difference (aside from question of whether actual science is involved or not) is the following: Just to be sure, first of all let me say that I do not believe (based on the evidence at hand) that scientific-racist claims have any merit whatsoever, and based on the history I studied, I am quite certain that even if there were some truth to them, the effect size is negligible compared to social effects. But, for the sake of argument (although it makes me sick to my stomach), let’s suppose that scientific-racism’s claims are absolutely true. There is a crucial distinction to be made between the veracity of a claim and the importance of discussing it. There’s a parable (by Kierkegaard, I think) about a man who escapes from an insane asylum and, determined not to be sent back, decides to appear sane by only saying true statements. To everyone he meets, he says, "The earth is round. The earth is round," which, naturally, gets him sent back. Or consider Trump’s statement about Carly Fiorina’s looks. I think most people would agree that the important question about the event is not whether Fiorina is actually ugly or not, but why Trump saw the need to make that statement, regardless of its empirical truth. Often, finding the need to say something tells more about the speaker than about the object of the statement. In Trump’s case, it was an expression of how he thinks women should be valued. Given the treatment of, say, blacks in the US, the question of whether and by how much blacks are innately stupider than whites is completely uninteresting to me. What is interesting to me is why some people think the question of their innate abilities is so important to merit discussion and/or investigation at this point in time. After all, there is much to be done to treat people more fairly and with more dignity even before getting to the question of their innate worth. Once all people are treated with the dignity they deserve, we can try addressing every person's individual abilities. We've invented technological solutions to short-sightedness; maybe we can find technological solutions to stupidity, too. So to answer your question: scientific racism often has motivations that are completely different from those behind most science. Expecting your next question, let me say that the reason racism and sexism are studied collectively yet innate abilities should be studied at the individual level -- putting aside the obvious answer of respective effect size and variability -- is this: it has been found as conclusively as anything in social science, that many social forces are best studied collectively, just as gas molecules are; that's just how they work. > in you believing I'm a white supremacist. I honestly don't understand this. I don't believe you're a white supremacist; I don't know you personally at all! You just keep claiming to be a white supremacist, maybe not using those exact words, but by repeating textbook scientific racism claims. I could insist not to be a billionaire, only to have a billion dollars in my bank account, and to talk about "your definition of billionaire". Scientific racism has a pretty well accepted definition, and your well publicized views coincide with it well. > highbrow dismissal and vague hints that some uncited authority supports your views. What views? That you're repeating classic scientific racism claims? The Wikipedia page has dozens of relevant references. Also, I don't understand your point about "highbrow dismissal". If I were to tell you "just use logic! Quantum mechanics can't possibly be true!" would your educated response be considered highbrow dismissal?

pron 10y ago

The false speculations -- shared by both liberals and conservative, BTW -- were the result of the same blindness of the elites that has led to the outcome. If you've read those who weren't blind, like Thomas Frank,they saw it coming (although I think even Frank thought that the blind establishment would prevail in this cycle). I can't tell if you're joking in the rest of your comment or not, but as to qualities you value, the test is simple: are those the qualities that you'd attribute to those you consider your social equals or superiors, or, in other words, are those the qualities you truly believe give people most social power (status and influence) in your own society? One of the distinguishing characteristics of scientific racism, from its modern rise in the late 19th century has always been to attribute "good" qualities to the races considered inferior as an attempt to paint itself not as a hate group but as simply the objective understanding of the natural order: every species has its good and bad qualities, and so does every race; every species has its place, and so does every race. Of course, scientific racism has always attributed to its believers those very qualities that happen to coincide with most power, because it's not about "better" or "worse", but naturally deserving of power or not. In other words, I smiled when I saw your "black female supremacist" comment, because I've read the exact same thing by writers in late 19th century many years ago in school, that I can't tell if you're ironically referencing classic scientific racism tropes or not. In any event, the view you're presenting here is actually called scientific racism. It is not an "attack on you" by any means, just as calling me socialist isn't an attack on me. I believe that if you read some of the vast scientific racism literature, you'll gladly identify yourself as a member (unless realizing how familiar and old your opinions are would make you understand how far they are from true heterodoxy). BTW, attributing Jews with qualities that actually do coincide with social power is also a trademark feature of antisemitism, scientific or otherwise. It is crucial for (or at least, the habit of) nativist/racist movements to paint themselves as both deserving of power as well as victims, at once weak and powerful. So if you want to follow up with a question of whether or not you're a Jewish supremacist, you can spare it. I've read it all in 100+-year-old books. I don't know if empathy is primarily destructive or not, but I still pity those who lack it.

yummyfajitas 10y ago
Yes, when I choose to date a woman (in part because of her beauty), I consider her my social equal. I also believe beauty gains a woman status and influence. Do you disagree with these two claims? (In fact, I consider beauty to be one of the most underappreciated virtues in the modern world. As a weird tangent, one of the major things I prefer about NYC to Bombay is how NYC weights beauty over wealth.) I'm beginning to think that what you call "scientific racism" is what I'd simply call "science" applied to humans. Do you believe it differs? If so, how? I suspect that question will be dodged. I suspect you are using the term "scientific racism" rather than "science" in order to create equivalence between scientists and "hate groups", and imply I feel hatred towards some group. That's definitely an implication I object to. So if you want to follow up with a question of whether or not you're a Jewish supremacist, you can spare it. I've read it all in 100+-year-old books. As I suspected, all possible viewpoints I might hold result in you believing I'm a white supremacist. Have fun with the highbrow dismissal and vague hints that some uncited authority supports your views.
- pron 10y ago
  > when I choose to date a woman (in part because of her beauty), I consider her my social equal. I also believe beauty gains a woman status and influence. Do you disagree with these two claims? I have no idea whether you consider the women you date to be your social equal or not -- it is none of my business -- but I don't think it is necessarily the case that every man (or woman) considers their romantic partners their social equal. As to the other claim, I wholeheartedly disagree. There is no question that beauty is a source of power. But you'd need to be blind to think that it is a greater source of power in our society than other qualities. Note, also, how beautiful women are often brought down (just a pretty face etc.), whereas powerful men are not discussed in the same way (nah, he's just an ugly billionaire). > I'm beginning to think that what you call "scientific racism" is what I'd simply call "science" applied to humans. Do you believe it differs? If so, how? What "I call" scientific racism is what is known by historians as scientific racism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism. The difference (aside from question of whether actual science is involved or not) is the following: Just to be sure, first of all let me say that I do not believe (based on the evidence at hand) that scientific-racist claims have any merit whatsoever, and based on the history I studied, I am quite certain that even if there were some truth to them, the effect size is negligible compared to social effects. But, for the sake of argument (although it makes me sick to my stomach), let’s suppose that scientific-racism’s claims are absolutely true. There is a crucial distinction to be made between the veracity of a claim and the importance of discussing it. There’s a parable (by Kierkegaard, I think) about a man who escapes from an insane asylum and, determined not to be sent back, decides to appear sane by only saying true statements. To everyone he meets, he says, "The earth is round. The earth is round," which, naturally, gets him sent back. Or consider Trump’s statement about Carly Fiorina’s looks. I think most people would agree that the important question about the event is not whether Fiorina is actually ugly or not, but why Trump saw the need to make that statement, regardless of its empirical truth. Often, finding the need to say something tells more about the speaker than about the object of the statement. In Trump’s case, it was an expression of how he thinks women should be valued. Given the treatment of, say, blacks in the US, the question of whether and by how much blacks are innately stupider than whites is completely uninteresting to me. What is interesting to me is why some people think the question of their innate abilities is so important to merit discussion and/or investigation at this point in time. After all, there is much to be done to treat people more fairly and with more dignity even before getting to the question of their innate worth. Once all people are treated with the dignity they deserve, we can try addressing every person's individual abilities. We've invented technological solutions to short-sightedness; maybe we can find technological solutions to stupidity, too. So to answer your question: scientific racism often has motivations that are completely different from those behind most science. Expecting your next question, let me say that the reason racism and sexism are studied collectively yet innate abilities should be studied at the individual level -- putting aside the obvious answer of respective effect size and variability -- is this: it has been found as conclusively as anything in social science, that many social forces are best studied collectively, just as gas molecules are; that's just how they work. > in you believing I'm a white supremacist. I honestly don't understand this. I don't believe you're a white supremacist; I don't know you personally at all! You just keep claiming to be a white supremacist, maybe not using those exact words, but by repeating textbook scientific racism claims. I could insist not to be a billionaire, only to have a billion dollars in my bank account, and to talk about "your definition of billionaire". Scientific racism has a pretty well accepted definition, and your well publicized views coincide with it well. > highbrow dismissal and vague hints that some uncited authority supports your views. What views? That you're repeating classic scientific racism claims? The Wikipedia page has dozens of relevant references. Also, I don't understand your point about "highbrow dismissal". If I were to tell you "just use logic! Quantum mechanics can't possibly be true!" would your educated response be considered highbrow dismissal?