5 ms·

that's nowhere close to a reasonable reading of any of my posts. You're on a crusade that no one else cares about.

eesmith 7y ago
Well, I care about it. I've been watching this exchange, and believe that your original comment, at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20383146 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20383146 , incorrectly describes the issue, and that the explanations you give for why "some people think pointing out that IQ for blacks is lower is a racist statement and others do not think it's a racist statement" are both something that a racist - perhaps different racists - might agree with. Your first point: > If you believe IQ is completely genetic, then a statement that more blacks have a lower IQ can be seen as racist against blacks. The evidence is that parts of what is measured in an IQ test is indeed genetic. There are people with genetic problems which, for example, make those people unable to advance beyond the mental skills of a baby. However, there is no evidence that whatever it is that an IQ test measures has any association with the genetics of black skin, and the evidence against a causative relationship continues to grow. Bear in mind that the genetic diversity of people with black skin is much higher than that of people with white skin, and the genetics show a "white race" is NOT a meaningful genetic concept. Your second point: > if you believe IQ is malleable (fixable to some extent), then the statement that more blacks have a lower IQ can be seen as a lambasting of the system, and empathy towards the black community. As codezero pointed out, the question that must be addressed first is, is IQ testing meaningful, and if so, what does it measure? A large body of evidence shows that IQ testing was developed alongside "scientific racism", and definitely used as part of the American eugenics programs. There's also a long line of justified complaints that many of the tests were "Eurocentric", and not just in knowledge of facts but also on how it relates to certain cultural viewpoints. As a result, most of the people who make an argument based on IQ, rather than economic inequality or systemic racism, are on shaky grounds to start with, so must make a much harder effort to justify their arguments - something that Raymond hasn't done. As he styles himself an anthropologist, he must surely know the issues. His interpretation, as best as I can tell, is that there's a conspiracy against talking about the truth. My own interpretation is that he's wrong, and that "the truth" is mostly an expression of racist beliefs combined with cherry-picked information and misinterpreted statistics. Going back to how you "explained why ... others do not think it's a racist statement." Do you agree that a racist might make a racist comment and not think it's racist? So your clarification might be completely correct, but still describe an expression of a racist viewpoint. The most influential anti-vaxxer don't say that vaccination should be banned. They instead "caution" about unexpected consequences, and big-pharma coverups, and the like. The most influential racists no longer cry out "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever". Raymond has a long history of saying things that a racist would agree with, and it's much more likely that your interpretation of his non-rascist intent is not correct. For example, "bullets slathered in pork fat", mentioned in another subthread of this discussion, is a not uncommon xenophobic phrase. The bullet is to kill Muslims, and the pork fat alludes to religious prohibitions on eating pork. The phrase is constructed to imply that Muslims should be killed, and desecrated in such a way they cannot enter heaven. It's also based on a false understanding of Islam. (It also echoes complaints by both Muslims and Hindus in India about cultural suppression during the rule of the British East Indian Company. The grease for the Enfield P-53 rifle cartridges could contain beef and pork tallow, which was offensive to soldiers who were adherents of either religions. This helped lead to Indian Rebellion of 1857.) The quote comes from Raymond's comment on NadaNet, archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20090624235730/http://www.catb.org/esr/nedanet/ https://web.archive.org/web/20090624235730/http://www.catb.o... . NadaNet was "a network of hackers formed to support the democratic revolution in Iran. Our mission is to help the Iranian people by setting up networks of proxy severs, anonymizers, and any other appropriate technologies that can enable them to communicate and organize — a network beyond the censorship or control of the Iranian regime." He also wrote on that page "I already got my jihadi death threat from Iran in 2006 before NedaNet" which is itself odd as, quoting from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihadism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihadism "The term jihadist is almost exclusively used to describe Sunni extremists". Yet "90–95% of Iranians associate themselves with the Shia branch of Islam, the official state religion, and about 5–10% with the Sunni and Sufi branches of Islam" says https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Iran https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Iran . I don't know what that death threat was, but characterizing it as 'jihadi' when coming from Iran seems based in ignorance - which is something that a racist would easily do but something any anthropologist deserving of the description should know to avoid.
- celticmusic 7y ago
  When you described me as a racist for making an innocuous observation I stopped reading. I pointed out that the other poster was being unfair, and I guess you expected that doubling down was going to get more of my time? I don't know what you expected, but whatever it is, you were wrong. There are entirely too many jackasses willing to scream racism, and I'm too fucking old to do anything but dismiss them.
  - eesmith 7y ago
    Where did I say you were a racist? I said that you were wrong that no one else cares for the points that DonHopkins is raising. I pointed out that you were being unfair to the other poster. Yes, there are interpretations of what Raymond has written which are not racist. Just like there are statements by anti-vaxxers which are not anti-vaccination. However, given the context of what Raymond writes, your non-racist interpretation does not seem to be valid.
    - celticmusic 7y ago
      > and that the explanations you give for why "some people think pointing out that IQ for blacks is lower is a racist statement and others do not think it's a racist statement" are both something that a racist - perhaps different racists - might agree with. The implication here is that I'm racist. You then go on to explain that having an opinion that a racist would agree with is problematic.
      - eesmith 7y ago
        No? Consider the phrase "we need to be cautious about vaccinations." That's true. Everyone agrees that that's true. The medical system is set up to be cautious about vaccinations. You can say it without being an anti-vaxxer at all, and support the current vaccination scheme. But an anti-vaxxer will say that we need to be cautious well beyond what has been demonstrated to be a correct level of caution. So, if someone makes that statement you CANNOT TELL if someone is an anti-vaxxer or not. You must look to the larger context. Similarly, a non-racist can make the statement "that more blacks have a lower IQ can be seen as a lambasting of the system, and empathy towards the black community". But so can a racist. A racist who accepts the decades of racially biased IQ testing might conclude that we need to treat blacks with special empathy the way that children or pets need empathy, and lambast the system of racial equality put into place by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as being unrealistic. Thus, your interpretation cannot, by itself, be read as something that only non-racists would agree with. Even if non-racists CAN and DO agree with it. Looking at the larger context of Raymond's writings, he's a racist. Not an overt racist in the George Wallace mold, but clearly a racist along the lines of the pseudoscientific "scientific racism" which has long since been disproven.

Well, I care about it. I've been watching this exchange, and believe that your original comment, at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20383146 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20383146 , incorrectly describes the issue, and that the explanations you give for why "some people think pointing out that IQ for blacks is lower is a racist statement and others do not think it's a racist statement" are both something that a racist - perhaps different racists - might agree with. Your first point: > If you believe IQ is completely genetic, then a statement that more blacks have a lower IQ can be seen as racist against blacks. The evidence is that parts of what is measured in an IQ test is indeed genetic. There are people with genetic problems which, for example, make those people unable to advance beyond the mental skills of a baby. However, there is no evidence that whatever it is that an IQ test measures has any association with the genetics of black skin, and the evidence against a causative relationship continues to grow. Bear in mind that the genetic diversity of people with black skin is much higher than that of people with white skin, and the genetics show a "white race" is NOT a meaningful genetic concept. Your second point: > if you believe IQ is malleable (fixable to some extent), then the statement that more blacks have a lower IQ can be seen as a lambasting of the system, and empathy towards the black community. As codezero pointed out, the question that must be addressed first is, is IQ testing meaningful, and if so, what does it measure? A large body of evidence shows that IQ testing was developed alongside "scientific racism", and definitely used as part of the American eugenics programs. There's also a long line of justified complaints that many of the tests were "Eurocentric", and not just in knowledge of facts but also on how it relates to certain cultural viewpoints. As a result, most of the people who make an argument based on IQ, rather than economic inequality or systemic racism, are on shaky grounds to start with, so must make a much harder effort to justify their arguments - something that Raymond hasn't done. As he styles himself an anthropologist, he must surely know the issues. His interpretation, as best as I can tell, is that there's a conspiracy against talking about the truth. My own interpretation is that he's wrong, and that "the truth" is mostly an expression of racist beliefs combined with cherry-picked information and misinterpreted statistics. Going back to how you "explained why ... others do not think it's a racist statement." Do you agree that a racist might make a racist comment and not think it's racist? So your clarification might be completely correct, but still describe an expression of a racist viewpoint. The most influential anti-vaxxer don't say that vaccination should be banned. They instead "caution" about unexpected consequences, and big-pharma coverups, and the like. The most influential racists no longer cry out "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever". Raymond has a long history of saying things that a racist would agree with, and it's much more likely that your interpretation of his non-rascist intent is not correct. For example, "bullets slathered in pork fat", mentioned in another subthread of this discussion, is a not uncommon xenophobic phrase. The bullet is to kill Muslims, and the pork fat alludes to religious prohibitions on eating pork. The phrase is constructed to imply that Muslims should be killed, and desecrated in such a way they cannot enter heaven. It's also based on a false understanding of Islam. (It also echoes complaints by both Muslims and Hindus in India about cultural suppression during the rule of the British East Indian Company. The grease for the Enfield P-53 rifle cartridges could contain beef and pork tallow, which was offensive to soldiers who were adherents of either religions. This helped lead to Indian Rebellion of 1857.) The quote comes from Raymond's comment on NadaNet, archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20090624235730/http://www.catb.org/esr/nedanet/ https://web.archive.org/web/20090624235730/http://www.catb.o... . NadaNet was "a network of hackers formed to support the democratic revolution in Iran. Our mission is to help the Iranian people by setting up networks of proxy severs, anonymizers, and any other appropriate technologies that can enable them to communicate and organize — a network beyond the censorship or control of the Iranian regime." He also wrote on that page "I already got my jihadi death threat from Iran in 2006 before NedaNet" which is itself odd as, quoting from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihadism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihadism "The term jihadist is almost exclusively used to describe Sunni extremists". Yet "90–95% of Iranians associate themselves with the Shia branch of Islam, the official state religion, and about 5–10% with the Sunni and Sufi branches of Islam" says https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Iran https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Iran . I don't know what that death threat was, but characterizing it as 'jihadi' when coming from Iran seems based in ignorance - which is something that a racist would easily do but something any anthropologist deserving of the description should know to avoid.

celticmusic 7y ago
When you described me as a racist for making an innocuous observation I stopped reading. I pointed out that the other poster was being unfair, and I guess you expected that doubling down was going to get more of my time? I don't know what you expected, but whatever it is, you were wrong. There are entirely too many jackasses willing to scream racism, and I'm too fucking old to do anything but dismiss them.
- eesmith 7y ago
  Where did I say you were a racist? I said that you were wrong that no one else cares for the points that DonHopkins is raising. I pointed out that you were being unfair to the other poster. Yes, there are interpretations of what Raymond has written which are not racist. Just like there are statements by anti-vaxxers which are not anti-vaccination. However, given the context of what Raymond writes, your non-racist interpretation does not seem to be valid.
  - celticmusic 7y ago
    > and that the explanations you give for why "some people think pointing out that IQ for blacks is lower is a racist statement and others do not think it's a racist statement" are both something that a racist - perhaps different racists - might agree with. The implication here is that I'm racist. You then go on to explain that having an opinion that a racist would agree with is problematic.
    - eesmith 7y ago
      No? Consider the phrase "we need to be cautious about vaccinations." That's true. Everyone agrees that that's true. The medical system is set up to be cautious about vaccinations. You can say it without being an anti-vaxxer at all, and support the current vaccination scheme. But an anti-vaxxer will say that we need to be cautious well beyond what has been demonstrated to be a correct level of caution. So, if someone makes that statement you CANNOT TELL if someone is an anti-vaxxer or not. You must look to the larger context. Similarly, a non-racist can make the statement "that more blacks have a lower IQ can be seen as a lambasting of the system, and empathy towards the black community". But so can a racist. A racist who accepts the decades of racially biased IQ testing might conclude that we need to treat blacks with special empathy the way that children or pets need empathy, and lambast the system of racial equality put into place by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as being unrealistic. Thus, your interpretation cannot, by itself, be read as something that only non-racists would agree with. Even if non-racists CAN and DO agree with it. Looking at the larger context of Raymond's writings, he's a racist. Not an overt racist in the George Wallace mold, but clearly a racist along the lines of the pseudoscientific "scientific racism" which has long since been disproven.