3 ms·

Fundamentally, creating policy based on racial capacity cannot end in a moral place. Every single time governments/societies start down that path, it ends poorl

Fundamentally, creating policy based on racial capacity cannot end in a moral place. Every single time governments/societies start down that path, it ends poorly. Frankly, who gives a shit. It seems better to me to live in a world that's .000005% less efficiently allocated than it is to live in the caste system that always emerges from that path.

FeepingCreature 9y ago
Yeah but you've broken a sanctity to take that 0.00005% away. You've opened the door to instrumentalizing science, formerly the pursuit of truth, for political gain. And I know everybody's doing that already, but there's a difference between everybody doing it and everybody being okay with it. One of those is salvageable, the other isn't.
moduspol 9y ago
Nobody advocates creating policy based on racial capacity, though. There absolutely are people advocating creating policy to the specific benefit of some race(s) over others based on the underlying premise that racism/oppression must be the only significant cause of inequal statistical outcomes. This inherently rejects the possibility of different (generalized) capacities between races, among other potential contributors (culture, individuals' decisions). Do you feel like that, too, cannot end in a moral place?
- toasterlovin 9y ago
  > Nobody advocates creating policy based on racial capacity, though. To be fair, I think a more precise statement would be that nobody within the mainstream advocates for this at this point in time. But they have in the past and people outside of the mainstream advocate for this even now. And it's conceivable that this could enter mainstream discourse again, even if we are pretty far from that point now.
toasterlovin 9y ago
I think the person you were responding to was pointing out that it is almost certainly not the case that the various traits which we would describe as capacities are distributed evenly across races. As far as I can tell, they were not advocating for racially based policy.

FeepingCreature 9y ago

Yeah but you've broken a sanctity to take that 0.00005% away. You've opened the door to instrumentalizing science, formerly the pursuit of truth, for political gain. And I know everybody's doing that already, but there's a difference between everybody doing it and everybody being okay with it. One of those is salvageable, the other isn't.

moduspol 9y ago

Nobody advocates creating policy based on racial capacity, though. There absolutely are people advocating creating policy to the specific benefit of some race(s) over others based on the underlying premise that racism/oppression must be the only significant cause of inequal statistical outcomes. This inherently rejects the possibility of different (generalized) capacities between races, among other potential contributors (culture, individuals' decisions). Do you feel like that, too, cannot end in a moral place?

toasterlovin 9y ago
> Nobody advocates creating policy based on racial capacity, though. To be fair, I think a more precise statement would be that nobody within the mainstream advocates for this at this point in time. But they have in the past and people outside of the mainstream advocate for this even now. And it's conceivable that this could enter mainstream discourse again, even if we are pretty far from that point now.

toasterlovin 9y ago

I think the person you were responding to was pointing out that it is almost certainly not the case that the various traits which we would describe as capacities are distributed evenly across races. As far as I can tell, they were not advocating for racially based policy.