4 ms·

This is unfair. You want to call people white supremacists based on the literal, objective content of their views, i.e. using the phrase in a narrow, technical

This is unfair. You want to call people white supremacists based on the literal, objective content of their views, i.e. using the phrase in a narrow, technical sense, while knowing full well that calling someone a white supremacist will rally behind you a whole train of people who are happy to free-associate all sorts of horrible things with the phrase.

tptacek 9y ago
You think it's unfair for me to call people who believe in the objective supremacy of one race over another "supremacists", simply because people have very dim opinions of racial supremacists?
- brandonhsiao 9y ago
  It's weird to claim you're simply using a technical term to categorize someone's views, but then choose such a charged phrase. Edit: rethought comment
  - tptacek 9y ago
    The term is charged for a reason. If a white supremacist feels bad that they're being compared to Richard Spencer, I think they should do some soul searching. There's a solid argument to be made that the quiet white supremacists do far more damage than the cartoon characters do.
- dionidium 9y ago
  I just want to make the syllogism you're operating with clear here: 1. If two groups have statistical differences in IQ across the population, then the group with the higher average is superior to the other 2. Person A believes that Group 1 has a higher average IQ than Group 2 3. Therefore, Person A is a Group 1 supremecist I would want to very strongly and categorically denounce point #1 in this list. Point #2 is just a matter of scientific observation. I don't have strong opinions on it one way or the other. But point #2 only implies #3 if you believe #1.
  - orangecat 9y ago
    I would want to very strongly and categorically denounce point #1 in this list. Well stated and I fully agree.
  - tptacek 9y ago
    Handwaving. Literally the only reason the topic of "statistical differences in IQ across the population" comes up on this site is as a defense for why there's a microscopic population of African Americans and Latinos in our industry. The reason, the logic goes, is that the supposed racial IQ differences mean that there simply aren't enough African Americans intellectually qualified for the field. There are plenty of reasons why a cohort of US persons of African descent could have lower recorded IQ scores than US persons of European descent. I'm not the one making the logical leap that the reason is a genetic disposition towards lower intelligence, rather than socioeconomic, environmental, or methodological issues. The white supremacists are the ones saying that†. If you're not, and you're not bringing the topic up unbidden as a defense of the status quo, I'm not saying anything about you. I'm not interested in pretending that there's a good or rational kind of white supremacist. Several people on this site, and this thread, seem determined to do so. You can, too, and I won't stop you, but "good kind" or "bad kind" I'm going to call them what they are. † (much to the consternation of some of the best-known people doing the actual science)
    - ggreer 9y ago
      Before Scott Alexander started http://slatestarcodex.com/ http://slatestarcodex.com/, he wrote this post http://squid314.livejournal.com/323694.html http://squid314.livejournal.com/323694.html: > I declare the Worst Argument In The World to be this: "If we can apply an emotionally charged word to something, we must judge it exactly the same as a typical instance of that emotionally charged word." Scott's post is full of examples, many of which I'm sure you'll agree are bad arguments. You are using this tactic with the term "white supremacy". Please note that doing so undermines your position and makes it clear to others that you are not arguing in good faith. I try to behave such that if someone who held opposite views used the same norms, we wouldn't end up feeling contempt for one another. This means interpreting charitably, trying to understand why people believe what they believe, and avoiding snark and sarcasm. Most importantly, it means not misrepresenting other people's views. Throughout this thread, you have reliably failed at all of these things. Could you imagine how two tptaceks with opposite views would behave? I'm convinced they would never get beyond name-calling and strawmanning. Both would feel certain in their cause and vindicated by their opponent's behavior. Worst of all, neither's beliefs would get closer to the truth. Please, for the love of all that is good, be more charitable.

tptacek 9y ago

You think it's unfair for me to call people who believe in the objective supremacy of one race over another "supremacists", simply because people have very dim opinions of racial supremacists?

brandonhsiao 9y ago
It's weird to claim you're simply using a technical term to categorize someone's views, but then choose such a charged phrase. Edit: rethought comment
- tptacek 9y ago
  The term is charged for a reason. If a white supremacist feels bad that they're being compared to Richard Spencer, I think they should do some soul searching. There's a solid argument to be made that the quiet white supremacists do far more damage than the cartoon characters do.
dionidium 9y ago
I just want to make the syllogism you're operating with clear here: 1. If two groups have statistical differences in IQ across the population, then the group with the higher average is superior to the other 2. Person A believes that Group 1 has a higher average IQ than Group 2 3. Therefore, Person A is a Group 1 supremecist I would want to very strongly and categorically denounce point #1 in this list. Point #2 is just a matter of scientific observation. I don't have strong opinions on it one way or the other. But point #2 only implies #3 if you believe #1.
- orangecat 9y ago
  I would want to very strongly and categorically denounce point #1 in this list. Well stated and I fully agree.
- tptacek 9y ago
  Handwaving. Literally the only reason the topic of "statistical differences in IQ across the population" comes up on this site is as a defense for why there's a microscopic population of African Americans and Latinos in our industry. The reason, the logic goes, is that the supposed racial IQ differences mean that there simply aren't enough African Americans intellectually qualified for the field. There are plenty of reasons why a cohort of US persons of African descent could have lower recorded IQ scores than US persons of European descent. I'm not the one making the logical leap that the reason is a genetic disposition towards lower intelligence, rather than socioeconomic, environmental, or methodological issues. The white supremacists are the ones saying that†. If you're not, and you're not bringing the topic up unbidden as a defense of the status quo, I'm not saying anything about you. I'm not interested in pretending that there's a good or rational kind of white supremacist. Several people on this site, and this thread, seem determined to do so. You can, too, and I won't stop you, but "good kind" or "bad kind" I'm going to call them what they are. † (much to the consternation of some of the best-known people doing the actual science)
  - ggreer 9y ago
    Before Scott Alexander started http://slatestarcodex.com/ http://slatestarcodex.com/, he wrote this post http://squid314.livejournal.com/323694.html http://squid314.livejournal.com/323694.html: > I declare the Worst Argument In The World to be this: "If we can apply an emotionally charged word to something, we must judge it exactly the same as a typical instance of that emotionally charged word." Scott's post is full of examples, many of which I'm sure you'll agree are bad arguments. You are using this tactic with the term "white supremacy". Please note that doing so undermines your position and makes it clear to others that you are not arguing in good faith. I try to behave such that if someone who held opposite views used the same norms, we wouldn't end up feeling contempt for one another. This means interpreting charitably, trying to understand why people believe what they believe, and avoiding snark and sarcasm. Most importantly, it means not misrepresenting other people's views. Throughout this thread, you have reliably failed at all of these things. Could you imagine how two tptaceks with opposite views would behave? I'm convinced they would never get beyond name-calling and strawmanning. Both would feel certain in their cause and vindicated by their opponent's behavior. Worst of all, neither's beliefs would get closer to the truth. Please, for the love of all that is good, be more charitable.