4 ms·

have you considered the possibility that he is simply correct about HBD?

by _dain_ 5y ago

igorkraw 5y ago
Depends what you and him exactly mean, but since he's talking about the neoreactionaries being correct, I'll assume he doesn't mean the scientific version which posits that race has no genetic basis (ctrl+F "race") https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genetic_variation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genetic_variation but more this variation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism. Even if it was correct, I think if there are no nefarious consequences being pushed for, I think people who want to argue HBD should rise to the challenge of explaining in plain english what they mean and what consequences they would draw from their assumption being correct, instead of hiding behind obfuscation. While I am not necessarily 100% aligned with groups like AntiFa chapters, BLM etc., at least they are honest about what they think and want to achieve.
wpietri 5y ago
Have you considered the long history of racist misuse of science and its "just asking questions" defenders?
- blindmute 5y ago
  That has nothing to do with its veracity.
  - wpietri 5y ago
    That is clearly not the case. For hundreds of years people have energetically misused science to justify both their racist feelings and systemic racism. And other people have showed up to disingenuously defend that in many ways, including your evasive, just-asking-questions routine. There is no reason to think that activity has stopped. And indeed, the shift in the last 50 years to make overt racism moderately less socially acceptable suggests that we might see an increase in the amount of covert racism. So I feel no obligation to take the latest iteration any more seriously than I would the 1850s version. It's the same deal with perpetual motion machines or multi-level marketing schemes or religious door-knockers: the next one to come along could finally be the one that isn't horseshit. But that's not the way to bet. If you'd like to make the argument that your personal favorite scientific racism is better science than the scientific racism favored by other racists, feel free to take a swing at it. But just looking over your comment history, I'm not going to give it a lot of weight.
    - blindmute 5y ago
      Just evaluate evidence and methodology. Historical factors are irrelevant. You obviously have a preconceived Truth that could never be disproven no matter what was empirically shown, but that's not science.
      - wpietri 5y ago
        Nah. I don't have The Truth, just some pretty good heuristics on how I spend my time. I've all ready looked into enough religion to know that I don't have to give any time to godbotherers. I've already looked at enough perpetual motion machines to know that I don't have to disprove each one. And I don't have to hear out each racist on why this time he's rilly rilly rite about how the people he hated all along are scientifically bad. Is it possible that one day somebody will come along with a real perpetual motion machine and I'll miss out for a while? Sure. But there are other people who enjoy evaluating that stuff enough that I'll eventually hear about it. And it's the same deal here. I don't get my theology from evangelical Christians, and I don't get my bioanthropology from evangelical racists.

have you considered the possibility that he is simply correct about HBD?

by _dain_ 5y ago

have you considered the possibility that he is simply correct about HBD?

Depends what you and him exactly mean, but since he's talking about the neoreactionaries being correct, I'll assume he doesn't mean the scientific version which posits that race has no genetic basis (ctrl+F "race") https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genetic_variation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genetic_variation but more this variation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism. Even if it was correct, I think if there are no nefarious consequences being pushed for, I think people who want to argue HBD should rise to the challenge of explaining in plain english what they mean and what consequences they would draw from their assumption being correct, instead of hiding behind obfuscation. While I am not necessarily 100% aligned with groups like AntiFa chapters, BLM etc., at least they are honest about what they think and want to achieve.

wpietri 5y ago

Have you considered the long history of racist misuse of science and its "just asking questions" defenders?

blindmute 5y ago
That has nothing to do with its veracity.
- wpietri 5y ago
  That is clearly not the case. For hundreds of years people have energetically misused science to justify both their racist feelings and systemic racism. And other people have showed up to disingenuously defend that in many ways, including your evasive, just-asking-questions routine. There is no reason to think that activity has stopped. And indeed, the shift in the last 50 years to make overt racism moderately less socially acceptable suggests that we might see an increase in the amount of covert racism. So I feel no obligation to take the latest iteration any more seriously than I would the 1850s version. It's the same deal with perpetual motion machines or multi-level marketing schemes or religious door-knockers: the next one to come along could finally be the one that isn't horseshit. But that's not the way to bet. If you'd like to make the argument that your personal favorite scientific racism is better science than the scientific racism favored by other racists, feel free to take a swing at it. But just looking over your comment history, I'm not going to give it a lot of weight.
  - blindmute 5y ago
    Just evaluate evidence and methodology. Historical factors are irrelevant. You obviously have a preconceived Truth that could never be disproven no matter what was empirically shown, but that's not science.
    - wpietri 5y ago
      Nah. I don't have The Truth, just some pretty good heuristics on how I spend my time. I've all ready looked into enough religion to know that I don't have to give any time to godbotherers. I've already looked at enough perpetual motion machines to know that I don't have to disprove each one. And I don't have to hear out each racist on why this time he's rilly rilly rite about how the people he hated all along are scientifically bad. Is it possible that one day somebody will come along with a real perpetual motion machine and I'll miss out for a while? Sure. But there are other people who enjoy evaluating that stuff enough that I'll eventually hear about it. And it's the same deal here. I don't get my theology from evangelical Christians, and I don't get my bioanthropology from evangelical racists.