|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
United States43211 Posts
On September 24 2016 01:40 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2016 01:32 KwarK wrote:On September 24 2016 01:26 Nyxisto wrote:
racial realism is nothing but another term for 1930s race pseudo-science. It's a form of essentialism that's politically motivated. Variation among the human population can be accounted for without resorting to race classifications. Pretty much. We saw the same shit with gender. Women made shitty scientists and inventors right up until the point where we started educating them at which point they became fine at it (although gender biased teaching is still an observable phenomenon in terms of teacher time allocation and expectations). The outcome was only linked to the premise by a complete refusal to account for external factors. Also easy to note that "racial realism" is complete B.S. since genetic research has pretty conclusively shown that race doesn't actually have a genetic basis.
I don't follow. Surely if you were a sufficiently committed eugenicist with a long enough time frame you could breed an island of people who did all have enough similar physical attributes to be called a race while also selecting them for intelligence. Hell, take dogs. We classify them into breeds based upon their physical traits but some of them are far better at learning commands and problem solving than others.
I thought the main issue with saying that one group is biologically superior to another is that firstly, we have no real way of testing that and accounting for externalities so the whole exercise is pointless and that secondly, that even if it is true, all humans fall on the same bell curve which overlaps heavily such that an above average member of an "inferior" group will still be better than an average member of a "superior" group. There is sufficient variance within groups that broad conclusions about which group is better will consist mostly of exceptions to the rule.
|
On September 24 2016 01:40 Stratos_IspeAr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2016 01:32 KwarK wrote:On September 24 2016 01:26 Nyxisto wrote:
racial realism is nothing but another term for 1930s race pseudo-science. It's a form of essentialism that's politically motivated. Variation among the human population can be accounted for without resorting to race classifications. Pretty much. We saw the same shit with gender. Women made shitty scientists and inventors right up until the point where we started educating them at which point they became fine at it (although gender biased teaching is still an observable phenomenon in terms of teacher time allocation and expectations). The outcome was only linked to the premise by a complete refusal to account for external factors. Also easy to note that "racial realism" is complete B.S. since genetic research has pretty conclusively shown that race doesn't actually have a genetic basis.
Sadly that doesn't stop people publishing damaging books about race that even end up getting posted here as evidence.
|
'Race realism' is one of those useful pseudo-intellectual buzzwords like 'virtue signalling' or 'cultural marxism' that significantly speeds up the process of identifying people that talk out of their asses. It's the online version of wearing an armband.
|
On September 24 2016 01:46 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2016 01:40 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 24 2016 01:32 KwarK wrote:On September 24 2016 01:26 Nyxisto wrote:
racial realism is nothing but another term for 1930s race pseudo-science. It's a form of essentialism that's politically motivated. Variation among the human population can be accounted for without resorting to race classifications. Pretty much. We saw the same shit with gender. Women made shitty scientists and inventors right up until the point where we started educating them at which point they became fine at it (although gender biased teaching is still an observable phenomenon in terms of teacher time allocation and expectations). The outcome was only linked to the premise by a complete refusal to account for external factors. Also easy to note that "racial realism" is complete B.S. since genetic research has pretty conclusively shown that race doesn't actually have a genetic basis. I don't follow. Surely if you were a sufficiently committed eugenicist with a long enough time frame you could breed an island of people who did all have enough similar physical attributes to be called a race while also selecting them for intelligence. Hell, take dogs. We classify them into breeds based upon their physical traits but some of them are far better at learning commands and problem solving than others. I thought the main issue with saying that one group is biologically superior to another is that firstly, we have no real way of testing that and accounting for externalities so the whole exercise is pointless and that secondly, that even if it is true, all humans fall on the same bell curve which overlaps heavily such that an above average member of an "inferior" group will still be better than an average member of a "superior" group. There is sufficient variance within groups that broad conclusions about which group is better will consist mostly of exceptions to the rule.
Genetic variation in human populations is entirely due to historical population clustering and lack of population cross-breeding.
There are no genes for being "black" or "white". The gene for the color of your skin is unrelated to other genotypes or phenotypes. Races are social constructs that we have come up with to label groups of people. If you did genetic tests on a large group of people, you would frequently find that your DNA more closely resembles that of a random person that isn't of your particular race than it resembles a person of the same race, particularly in an age of globalization like the one we're living in.
This is why black people from various parts of the world have significantly different phenotypes. The same can be said of groups that we label hispanic, Asian, caucasian, or anything else you want to come up with.
So yes, you could genetically engineer a population on an island that had very specific phenotypes, but 1) this wouldn't be a "race" in the sense that it is used today; the term "race" is dominantly used based on skin color (which isn't related to other phenotypes) and, to a much smaller extent, place(s) of origin, and 2) even if you did commit to that type of genetic engineering, that population still wouldn't have a definitive gene that makes them "Race X". Their race would merely be the aggregate of the various phenotypes expressed that they share in common as caused by their environment, and they could be easily change on a generational scale by simple changing the environment or cross-breeding.
|
On September 24 2016 01:53 Dan HH wrote:
'Race realism' is one of those useful pseudo-intellectual buzzwords like 'virtue signalling' or 'cultural marxism' that significantly speeds up the process of identifying people that talk out of their asses. It's the online version of wearing an armband.
Can we put "globalist" in that pile too?
|
The differences in race that the alt right concerns itself with don't have to be genetic.
|
On September 24 2016 01:23 Sermokala wrote:
Stop and frisk takes illegal guns from black people. It just tends to have more guns banned in large cities to be taken away. If they had say a shotgun down the back of their pants and the binder of permits down the front they'd be fine.
How does chicago have stop and frisk when it was ruled unconstitutional. It just feels like a weird communist secret police "show me your papers" policy.
As far as I can tell, the unconstitutionality was based around New York's racially-based no-cause stop and frisk, not stop and frisk itself.
Chicago's isn't quite as racially disparate (though it is very racially disparate) and officers have to fill out cards explaining why they stopped and frisked. I dunno if it's been court-challenged yet, but they've taken steps to get rid of the worst of it.
But doing what they did in New York which Trump said "worked very well" would be unconstitutional almost certainly.
Also, since they lowered stop and frisk rates they recovered more handguns, so Trump's entire idea is, as usual, a crock of horseshit.
|
On September 24 2016 01:46 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2016 01:40 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 24 2016 01:32 KwarK wrote:On September 24 2016 01:26 Nyxisto wrote:
racial realism is nothing but another term for 1930s race pseudo-science. It's a form of essentialism that's politically motivated. Variation among the human population can be accounted for without resorting to race classifications. Pretty much. We saw the same shit with gender. Women made shitty scientists and inventors right up until the point where we started educating them at which point they became fine at it (although gender biased teaching is still an observable phenomenon in terms of teacher time allocation and expectations). The outcome was only linked to the premise by a complete refusal to account for external factors. Also easy to note that "racial realism" is complete B.S. since genetic research has pretty conclusively shown that race doesn't actually have a genetic basis. I thought the main issue with saying that one group is biologically superior to another is that firstly, we have no real way of testing that and accounting for externalities so the whole exercise is pointless and that secondly, that even if it is true, all humans fall on the same bell curve which overlaps heavily such that an above average member of an "inferior" group will still be better than an average member of a "superior" group. There is sufficient variance within groups that broad conclusions about which group is better will consist mostly of exceptions to the rule.
This would be a sound way of debunking privilege if you were motivated to change contexts.
|
Pretty amazing how much time Trump spent during the Republican debates talking about polls and the states he had won. It was almost his main focus. What if Hillary said, "look how much he harped on the polls, but ever since the conventions he has been losing to me". She needs to match his comebacks with confidence IMO.
He gets by policy questions by tying things back into his narrow populist stuff, for example anything to do with the economy is "China devaluation trade deficit bad". Also talked about his endorsements on different issues, like Joe Arpaio.
But he talks loudly and with a tone of conviction and assertiveness (different than his run of the mill TV interviews), giving the impression he's in command of the subjects. On the superficial front, he's obviously much better than Hillary on TV.
He has a fairly small grab bag of Hillary attacks, but they are very sweeping in their scope. For example, every single problem in the world currently is her fault because she was SoS (this actually is his position). Bill Clinton signed NAFTA, so the loss of manufacturing jobs is the Clintons' fault. Surely though, Clinton has prepared responses to each item in the grab bag.
She needs to diversify the conversation during the debate, to prevent Trump from being so narrow.
Tbh the debates might not be a trounce one way or another. Unless people really just grade it on presentation, in which case Trump could win. I don't know what in the hell to predict.
|
On September 24 2016 01:21 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2016 22:50 ChristianS wrote:On September 23 2016 21:18 xDaunt wrote:On September 23 2016 18:42 Acrofales wrote:On September 23 2016 17:16 ChristianS wrote:On September 23 2016 15:49 Danglars wrote:On September 23 2016 15:03 ChristianS wrote:
Jesus this thread is depressing sometimes.
The last ~24 hours of discussion have put a sobering thought into my head, and I wonder what you guys think of it. Basically, in the last 50 or so years, there's been a strong anti-racist movement in the country as a whole. Laws that discriminate against blacks became widely considered unacceptable, public figures are shunned for expressing racist ideas or using racist epithets. The implied justification was that we as a society were making a concerted effort to eliminate racism as much as possible, and drive whatever resistant strains that survived to . Considered with other historical moves towards equality (elimination of slavery, blacks joining the military, Brown v. Board, etc.), it fit nicely with an overarching narrative of racial progress.
Maybe this is just a problem with anecdotal evidence, but it seems to me those attitudes are completely different in a lot of people today. Hardened Trump supporters often try to deny that Trump is a racist, but far more frequently I see people that just don't seem to care much. They might even lean toward thinking he probably is, but it's just not that important an issue. This is really baffling to me, since for my whole life there's been a widespread cultural agreement that overt racism is one of the ugliest sides of human civilization and absolutely cannot be tolerated, but in the broad view of history, racism is absolutely the norm. Not always as bad as early American South racism, but it's always been pretty normal to distrust people with different cultural and ethnic background than you, treat them worse, value their life less than that of your family or friends or tribe members. I always figured that was just part of progress – unlike humans for most of history, we have cars and refrigerators and computers and a prevailing cultural understanding that racism is bad. It's a nice stroll through memory lane, but you make a sudden leap into modern times by contrasting the civil rights era with Trump and his supporters. Sit at the back of the bus was racism. Separate eating establishments based on race was racism. Immigration policy isn't. Political invective on several issues isn't (though abrasive speech will still cause others to bristle no matter the subject). You're right to call it anecdotal, and it's intensely subjective. You'll see the comparisons to late 1800s racism and xenophobia, others will see you as a wannabe crusader longing for a bygone era but without a real civil rights cause today. Worth noting I never said Trump's immigration policy means he's racist. I was honestly more focused on Trump himself. Being prosecuted by Nixon's Justice Department for really explicitly discriminating against black tenants in his hotels back in the 70's. That stuff by Jack O'Donnell about how when he was president of Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino, Trump went off about not wanting a black guy as an accountant because blacks are lazy, and he only wants Jews counting his money. Calling Mexicans rapists. Those shitty stereotypes he embraced talking to the Republican Jewish Coalition. Y'know, that stuff. But I wasn't really looking to pick a fight either. I don't really long to be a civil rights crusader. The 50's and 60's sound awful, and I'm glad I didn't have to be around for it. I honestly wish that we were having a relatively normal election between, like, Tim Kaine and Jeb Bush, and I could tune out and read the occasional headline without click on it and maybe get around to registering to vote if I had nothing better to do, but I probably never would because I wouldn't care that much who won. Instead we've got a large, disgruntled population of lower- and middle-class white people who feel that they've been wronged by the world. They think they used to have some kind of glory and power, but now their manufacturing jobs are fading away and they're losing their privileged place in the world, and they feel betrayed and unsafe and powerless. We've got a demagogue candidate who's appealing to this population by telling them that they lost their power because of Mexicans and Muslims and China. He's parading around families of people that were raped or murdered by illegal Mexicans to gin up a rage against these foreigners that are raping and murdering their wives and children. He's saying the whole world is laughing at them because they don't win any more. And he's promising them that if they support him, then by the time he's done, nobody will laugh at them again. This is not a drill, this is how real life racial persecution gets started. This is the type of movement that used to lead to pogroms and lynchings and blood libel. People get so caught up in the movement and the propaganda and the cult of personality around a charismatic leader that they stop paying attention to facts and policy, to the point that you can explain to them that the crime rate is down, not up, that they lost their manufacturing jobs to the inexorable forces of globalism and no one can bring them back, and that illegal immigrants actually commit violent crime at a lower rate than the rest of the population, but it has absolutely no bearing on how they feel. My sobering thought was this: what if we're not on an inevitable march toward progress and greater racial equality? What if the anti-racist attitudes of the last 50 years aren't a lasting cultural achievement, but just a temporary backlash against the ugly racism of the 40's and 50's? People saw how hideous that Nazi movement was, and they saw the horrible treatment of blacks in the South, and the lynching of Emmett Till, and the dogs and firehoses deployed against civil rights protesters, and for a while it became fashionable to be against racism.
But now that all that stuff isn't such recent memory, racism takes on all of the advantages that made it prevalent in human society before. Scapegoating is an easy way to feel better about your problems. Stereotyping is almost inescapable in the psychology of how humans understand the world. Many apparent virtues that people are encouraged to cultivate (e.g. loyalty, empathy) can subconsciously promote tribalism (e.g. loyalty involves favoring those you're close to over those you're not, empathy encourages greater connection to people who are more like you). Racial minorities are often small enough in number that society can get weird impressions of them simply from having too small a sample size, and once a weird (especially negative) bias gets in place, confirmation bias and self-fulfilling prophecy effects tend to maintain or expand that bias.
I've been hoping all the bigotry of the Trump movement would be remembered by history as a weird spike of bigotry as the white American middle class came to terms with several realities it had been in denial about for years. But what if history remembers these past ~50 years as that brief period where American society was largely anti-racist? My sobering thought is this: what if the current campaign against out-of-fashion ideas and racial realism won't be reversed for many years? What if the zealots of today, the current victors of the culture war, won't realize how hideous their own movement has become, nor how the '60s rebellion against authority became a puritanical persecution from authority (cultural leadership brought to you by Your Moral Betters™). Scapegoating and stereotyping of Trump supporters for social ills could continue, as much as I wish it would not. It is intensely psychological and the fight in every generation is to inspire the better angels of our nature. I'm hoping the atmosphere of moral scolds today are later regarded as a weird period of American history when people embraced racializing every issue to the detriment of true debate on the issues. When language was so bastardized and social media lynch mobs so emboldened that every political opinion was viewed by the color difference of the author & subject's skin. I look with some hope to the next generation. Today's left-leaning culture responds to criticism like a priest to sacrilege, and even young people today can see how bizarre it acts. It's far more likely that today's regress, disguised as progress, continues to win and that's a very sobering thought indeed. Seems like you're throwing out a lot of punches at stuff I'm not sure if you're assuming I support. I'm also not sure what's meant by terms like "racial realism." It seems to denote a position which acknowledges the realities of race (about which this "regressive left" is presumably in denial), but I'm not sure what realities you think those are. A white supremacist might say they're a "racial realist" for acknowledging that white people are better than black people. An SJW might call themselves a "racial realist" for acknowledging the power dynamics between whites and various minorities in America today, such that a "color-blind" approach can't solve racial issues. I assume you're in neither of these camps, so you probably mean something more along the lines of acknowledging black culture has some toxic trends which contribute to blacks' underprivileged state (which the regressive left insists is a racist position)? I'm only guessing at your meaning here. But you seem to be opposed to much of the social backlash that currently exists against people and positions viewed as "racist," and I assume you don't think we shouldn't stigmatize actual racism, so you must think the labels of racist and bigot have been over-applied by the left. I might even agree with that. Online articles trying to teach white people about "microagressions" and the like can be alright when they come from a place of earnestly trying to help whites understand how to make racial minorities feel more at ease and less alienated, but when they come in the form of condemning anyone who uses the question "So, where are you from?" in small talk as Grand Dragon of the KKK, I think it weakens the label of "racist" and makes it easier for actual racists to hide behind the cover of just being "politically incorrect." A lot of people that use terms like "cultural appropriation" and "gentrification" to explain how white people are literally Hitler are being sloppy in their reasoning, and mostly just making people think it's okay to be skeptical that they could possibly ever be racist. So I think you've assumed that I'm a member of that club, and I'm really not. Back in saner times, most of my online arguments were with those very people. But that group mostly just whines and blogs about Miley Cyrus appropriating this or that. This ethnocentrist movement wants to take over the world. I was hoping that, based on a progress-based view of racial equality, America had come far enough that it could tell the difference between telling an off-color joke to your friends (i.e. political incorrectness) and accusing Mexico of deliberately sending rapists across the border (i.e. racism). I was wrong, thus I am rethinking my assumption that racial equality has steadily improved over time and will only keep getting better. I think this is the first opinion since the "racism war" started about 20 pages back that is actually worth reading. His post is the saner and nicer version of Kwark's 40% of America is racist posts. And it's unsurprising to me that he, like everyone else on the other side of the issue, struggles with this part of Danglars' post: My sobering thought is this: what if the current campaign against out-of-fashion ideas and racial realism won't be reversed for many years? What if the zealots of today, the current victors of the culture war, won't realize how hideous their own movement has become, nor how the '60s rebellion against authority became a puritanical persecution from authority (cultural leadership brought to you by Your Moral Betters™). Scapegoating and stereotyping of Trump supporters for social ills could continue, as much as I wish it would not. It is intensely psychological and the fight in every generation is to inspire the better angels of our nature.
I'm hoping the atmosphere of moral scolds today are later regarded as a weird period of American history when people embraced racializing every issue to the detriment of true debate on the issues. When language was so bastardized and social media lynch mobs so emboldened that every political opinion was viewed by the color difference of the author & subject's skin. I look with some hope to the next generation. Today's left-leaning culture responds to criticism like a priest to sacrilege, and even young people today can see how bizarre it acts. It's far more likely that today's regress, disguised as progress, continues to win and that's a very sobering thought indeed. If by "struggles with" you mean "has trouble figuring out what he's getting at," you're absolutely right. I mean I've been puzzling over the term "racial realism" and I still can't figure out what it is supposed to mean. Racial realism is an idea from the alt right that there are differences between the races that should be recognized and accounted for as opposed to washing over those differences with the artificial (ie "the not real") construct of liberal/progressive egalitarianism. Depending upon how you define the alt right, different factions of the alt right reach different conclusions from this perspective, ranging from advocacy for western culture to advocacy for white nationalism.
Yeah, so basically this expression just rebrands XIXth + first half of XXth century racism.
|
United States43211 Posts
On September 24 2016 02:15 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2016 01:46 KwarK wrote:On September 24 2016 01:40 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 24 2016 01:32 KwarK wrote:On September 24 2016 01:26 Nyxisto wrote:
racial realism is nothing but another term for 1930s race pseudo-science. It's a form of essentialism that's politically motivated. Variation among the human population can be accounted for without resorting to race classifications. Pretty much. We saw the same shit with gender. Women made shitty scientists and inventors right up until the point where we started educating them at which point they became fine at it (although gender biased teaching is still an observable phenomenon in terms of teacher time allocation and expectations). The outcome was only linked to the premise by a complete refusal to account for external factors. Also easy to note that "racial realism" is complete B.S. since genetic research has pretty conclusively shown that race doesn't actually have a genetic basis. I thought the main issue with saying that one group is biologically superior to another is that firstly, we have no real way of testing that and accounting for externalities so the whole exercise is pointless and that secondly, that even if it is true, all humans fall on the same bell curve which overlaps heavily such that an above average member of an "inferior" group will still be better than an average member of a "superior" group. There is sufficient variance within groups that broad conclusions about which group is better will consist mostly of exceptions to the rule. This would be a sound way of debunking privilege if you were motivated to change contexts.
Only if we first set privilege up as a really dumb straw man. Which some people on the left do too for some reason. It's not an especially hard concept but a lot of people really seem to struggle with it. Not everyone has the same privilege, not all privilege is the same, everyone has some kind of privilege. Privilege is basically just an agenda pushing name for the concept that your own subjective experiences may not be universally applicable for drawing conclusions about an entire group with different experiences. It's not a great name but it's the name we have and rather than talk about privilege without saying the word it's easier just to say it.
Consider the following two examples.
A white guy is in a city where the biggest employer discriminates against black guys (in the modern way where you don't write down that you're doing it but it just turns out that way). Said white guy says "why don't those unemployed black guys just get jobs". In this case he is failing to understand that his own ease in finding a job is not applicable to those he is judging. He is failing to understand his own "privilege" in being a member of the group the employer favours.
A white guy is in a city where the biggest employer does not discriminate. If he says the exact same thing then he is not failing to understand his privilege because he doesn't have any in this very narrow specific instance, even though he is white.
Terms like white privilege and male privilege are generalizations for the group of subjective experiences that are different for those groups than they are for others. Black privilege and female privilege also exist. There are a shitton of different privileges included inside the bundle being referred to, white privilege as a bundle may include leniency from the police as a specific privilege but obviously not every police officer shows leniency and therefore not every white guy can be a beneficiary of that. Naming it privilege was presumably a conscious choice by whoever stated the obvious fact that people judge others based upon inapplicable experiences and they've made shit harder for everyone because it confuses the hell out of idiots on both sides of the spectrum.
|
If Hillary is able to keep the debates about actual policy and issues, I don't think Trump really stands a chance (not that debates will have a large effect on the results of this election). He will make extremely vague statements all night long, and she needs to ask him to be more specific and explain his rationale. Unless he does an unreal amount of debate prep (which I doubt), he won't be able to. A one-on-one debate format is very different from what he did in the primaries, which is wait until someone brings up a topic he likes or attacks him personally, and jump in with both guns blazing.
|
United States43211 Posts
On September 24 2016 02:17 Doodsmack wrote:
Pretty amazing how much time Trump spent during the Republican debates talking about polls and the states he had won. It was almost his main focus. What if Hillary said, "look how much he harped on the polls, but ever since the conventions he has been losing to me". She needs to match his comebacks with confidence IMO.
He gets by policy questions by tying things back into his narrow populist stuff, for example anything to do with the economy is "China devaluation trade deficit bad". Also talked about his endorsements on different issues, like Joe Arpaio.
But he talks loudly and with a tone of conviction and assertiveness (different than his run of the mill TV interviews), giving the impression he's in command of the subjects. On the superficial front, he's obviously much better than Hillary on TV.
He has a fairly small grab bag of Hillary attacks, but they are very sweeping in their scope. For example, every single problem in the world currently is her fault because she was SoS (this actually is his position). Bill Clinton signed NAFTA, so the loss of manufacturing jobs is the Clintons' fault. Surely though, Clinton has prepared responses to each item in the grab bag.
She needs to diversify the conversation during the debate, to prevent Trump from being so narrow.
Tbh the debates might not be a trounce one way or another. Unless people really just grade it on presentation, in which case Trump could win. I don't know what in the hell to predict.
I'm hoping for her to just go Presidential as fuck, give knowledgeable and detailed answers about the issues, why they matter and her own record on them. It'll contrast strongly with Trump's vague platitudes about how X is the worst and he'll make it the best.
|
On September 24 2016 02:30 ZasZ. wrote:
If Hillary is able to keep the debates about actual policy and issues, I don't think Trump really stands a chance (not that debates will have a large effect on the results of this election). He will make extremely vague statements all night long, and she needs to ask him to be more specific and explain his rationale. Unless he does an unreal amount of debate prep (which I doubt), he won't be able to. A one-on-one debate format is very different from what he did in the primaries, which is wait until someone brings up a topic he likes or attacks him personally, and jump in with both guns blazing.
On the other hand, think about the people who are still undecided or swayable. The question is why? They really shouldn't be at this point. Who accounts for horse race changes? It's gotta be people who vote on superficials and triviality and what happens on TV, rather than policy.
But you're right the debates aren't the be all end all. Obama lost the first 2012 debate by a landslide after all.
|
On September 24 2016 02:15 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2016 01:46 KwarK wrote:On September 24 2016 01:40 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 24 2016 01:32 KwarK wrote:On September 24 2016 01:26 Nyxisto wrote:
racial realism is nothing but another term for 1930s race pseudo-science. It's a form of essentialism that's politically motivated. Variation among the human population can be accounted for without resorting to race classifications. Pretty much. We saw the same shit with gender. Women made shitty scientists and inventors right up until the point where we started educating them at which point they became fine at it (although gender biased teaching is still an observable phenomenon in terms of teacher time allocation and expectations). The outcome was only linked to the premise by a complete refusal to account for external factors. Also easy to note that "racial realism" is complete B.S. since genetic research has pretty conclusively shown that race doesn't actually have a genetic basis. I thought the main issue with saying that one group is biologically superior to another is that firstly, we have no real way of testing that and accounting for externalities so the whole exercise is pointless and that secondly, that even if it is true, all humans fall on the same bell curve which overlaps heavily such that an above average member of an "inferior" group will still be better than an average member of a "superior" group. There is sufficient variance within groups that broad conclusions about which group is better will consist mostly of exceptions to the rule. This would be a sound way of debunking privilege if you were motivated to change contexts.
I'm not sure you're using the most charitable definition of "privilege." Which is understandable since some elements on the left like to bandy the term around as though it's common knowledge, and as though it's only about race. You seem to be suggesting that, if privilege were real, all white people should be generally well-off. This is actually not what privilege suggests, at all.
Even if we accept that privilege exists, we can still understand why a number of white people in the United States are impoverished, chronically un- or underemployed, poorly educated, disproportionately affected by drug dependency, and so forth. Privilege doesn't say that this can't happen, it just says that being white is more helpful than being anything else (particularly black), all else being equal.
To which one might respond, "but all else is never equal." This is absolutely true. In fact, it is so true that it is really frustrating to me when people say things like "white people have it easier," because, while I get where that idea comes from, it obscures the fact that race is never the only factor. But as it happens, privilege accommodates this. In addition to racial privilege, we have a number of other things to consider, including but not limited to:
class privilege
gender privilege
mental illness
physical appearance
sexuality
All of which have a bearing on an individual person's life course. If you're white but extremely poor, your white privilege could conceivably work against you: people may judge you more harshly than a black person in similar circumstances, because the norm to which they are unconsciously comparing you sets a higher bar. But at the same time, it's often harder to escape from poverty if you're black. This is because people are quicker to associate poverty with blackness---and, consequently, the expectations set for poor black people are much lower, and there is less effort put into encouraging them to rise above their initial circumstances.
Edited for clarity.
|
On September 24 2016 02:11 xDaunt wrote:
The differences in race that the alt right concerns itself with don't have to be genetic.
The problem with race is that they pick up and run with terminology and make new definitions from it. Race is a biological term only, but it gets abused in all kinds of ways. People always use some term like race, ethnicity, etc when they refer to different things and usually they end up mixing attributes together from biological definitions to cultural ones to arrive at some slapdash definition that still is problematic. the alt right is just making shit up to fit their agenda.
Because whether it be in our biology or our culture, human groups can't really be neatly divided up. Too much cross over and sharing.
There has been some discussions recently among paleoanthropologists if Neanderthals and Densinovans might meet the criteria for races. But today? No
|
On September 24 2016 02:46 RuiBarbO wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2016 02:15 oBlade wrote:On September 24 2016 01:46 KwarK wrote:On September 24 2016 01:40 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 24 2016 01:32 KwarK wrote:On September 24 2016 01:26 Nyxisto wrote:
racial realism is nothing but another term for 1930s race pseudo-science. It's a form of essentialism that's politically motivated. Variation among the human population can be accounted for without resorting to race classifications. Pretty much. We saw the same shit with gender. Women made shitty scientists and inventors right up until the point where we started educating them at which point they became fine at it (although gender biased teaching is still an observable phenomenon in terms of teacher time allocation and expectations). The outcome was only linked to the premise by a complete refusal to account for external factors. Also easy to note that "racial realism" is complete B.S. since genetic research has pretty conclusively shown that race doesn't actually have a genetic basis. I thought the main issue with saying that one group is biologically superior to another is that firstly, we have no real way of testing that and accounting for externalities so the whole exercise is pointless and that secondly, that even if it is true, all humans fall on the same bell curve which overlaps heavily such that an above average member of an "inferior" group will still be better than an average member of a "superior" group. There is sufficient variance within groups that broad conclusions about which group is better will consist mostly of exceptions to the rule. This would be a sound way of debunking privilege if you were motivated to change contexts. I'm not sure you're using the most charitable definition of "privilege." Which is understandable since some elements on the left like to bandy the term around as though it's common knowledge, and as though it's only about race. You seem to be suggesting that, if privilege were real, all white people should be generally well-off. This is actually not what privilege suggests, at all. Even if we accept that privilege exists, we can still understand why a number of white people in the United States are impoverished, chronically un- or underemployed, poorly educated, disproportionately affected by drug dependency, and so forth. Privilege doesn't say that this can't happen, it just says that being white is more helpful than being anything else (particularly black), all else being equal. To which one might respond, "but all else is never equal." This is absolutely true. In fact, it is so true that it is really frustrating to me when people say things like "white people have it easier," because, while I get where that idea comes from, it obscures the fact that race is never the only factor. But as it happens, privilege accommodates this. In addition to racial privilege, we have a number of other things to consider, including but not limited to: class privilege gender privilege mental illness physical appearance sexuality All of which have a bearing on an individual person's life course. If you're white but extremely poor, your white privilege could conceivably work against you: people may judge you more harshly than a black person in similar circumstances, because the norm to which they are unconsciously comparing you sets a higher bar. But at the same time, it's often harder to escape from poverty if you're black. This is because people are quicker to associate poverty with blackness---and, consequently, the expectations set for poor black people are much lower, and there is less effort put into encouraging them to rise above their initial circumstances. Edited for clarity.
Do you think black privilege exists like Kwark does?
|
On September 24 2016 02:58 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2016 02:46 RuiBarbO wrote:On September 24 2016 02:15 oBlade wrote:On September 24 2016 01:46 KwarK wrote:On September 24 2016 01:40 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 24 2016 01:32 KwarK wrote:On September 24 2016 01:26 Nyxisto wrote:
racial realism is nothing but another term for 1930s race pseudo-science. It's a form of essentialism that's politically motivated. Variation among the human population can be accounted for without resorting to race classifications. Pretty much. We saw the same shit with gender. Women made shitty scientists and inventors right up until the point where we started educating them at which point they became fine at it (although gender biased teaching is still an observable phenomenon in terms of teacher time allocation and expectations). The outcome was only linked to the premise by a complete refusal to account for external factors. Also easy to note that "racial realism" is complete B.S. since genetic research has pretty conclusively shown that race doesn't actually have a genetic basis. I thought the main issue with saying that one group is biologically superior to another is that firstly, we have no real way of testing that and accounting for externalities so the whole exercise is pointless and that secondly, that even if it is true, all humans fall on the same bell curve which overlaps heavily such that an above average member of an "inferior" group will still be better than an average member of a "superior" group. There is sufficient variance within groups that broad conclusions about which group is better will consist mostly of exceptions to the rule. This would be a sound way of debunking privilege if you were motivated to change contexts. I'm not sure you're using the most charitable definition of "privilege." Which is understandable since some elements on the left like to bandy the term around as though it's common knowledge, and as though it's only about race. You seem to be suggesting that, if privilege were real, all white people should be generally well-off. This is actually not what privilege suggests, at all. Even if we accept that privilege exists, we can still understand why a number of white people in the United States are impoverished, chronically un- or underemployed, poorly educated, disproportionately affected by drug dependency, and so forth. Privilege doesn't say that this can't happen, it just says that being white is more helpful than being anything else (particularly black), all else being equal. To which one might respond, "but all else is never equal." This is absolutely true. In fact, it is so true that it is really frustrating to me when people say things like "white people have it easier," because, while I get where that idea comes from, it obscures the fact that race is never the only factor. But as it happens, privilege accommodates this. In addition to racial privilege, we have a number of other things to consider, including but not limited to: class privilege gender privilege mental illness physical appearance sexuality All of which have a bearing on an individual person's life course. If you're white but extremely poor, your white privilege could conceivably work against you: people may judge you more harshly than a black person in similar circumstances, because the norm to which they are unconsciously comparing you sets a higher bar. But at the same time, it's often harder to escape from poverty if you're black. This is because people are quicker to associate poverty with blackness---and, consequently, the expectations set for poor black people are much lower, and there is less effort put into encouraging them to rise above their initial circumstances. Edited for clarity. Do you think black privilege exists like Kwark does?
Well, I dunno. What does he mean by "black privilege"?
|
United States43211 Posts
On September 24 2016 03:24 RuiBarbO wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2016 02:58 oBlade wrote:On September 24 2016 02:46 RuiBarbO wrote:On September 24 2016 02:15 oBlade wrote:On September 24 2016 01:46 KwarK wrote:On September 24 2016 01:40 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 24 2016 01:32 KwarK wrote:On September 24 2016 01:26 Nyxisto wrote:
racial realism is nothing but another term for 1930s race pseudo-science. It's a form of essentialism that's politically motivated. Variation among the human population can be accounted for without resorting to race classifications. Pretty much. We saw the same shit with gender. Women made shitty scientists and inventors right up until the point where we started educating them at which point they became fine at it (although gender biased teaching is still an observable phenomenon in terms of teacher time allocation and expectations). The outcome was only linked to the premise by a complete refusal to account for external factors. Also easy to note that "racial realism" is complete B.S. since genetic research has pretty conclusively shown that race doesn't actually have a genetic basis. I thought the main issue with saying that one group is biologically superior to another is that firstly, we have no real way of testing that and accounting for externalities so the whole exercise is pointless and that secondly, that even if it is true, all humans fall on the same bell curve which overlaps heavily such that an above average member of an "inferior" group will still be better than an average member of a "superior" group. There is sufficient variance within groups that broad conclusions about which group is better will consist mostly of exceptions to the rule. This would be a sound way of debunking privilege if you were motivated to change contexts. I'm not sure you're using the most charitable definition of "privilege." Which is understandable since some elements on the left like to bandy the term around as though it's common knowledge, and as though it's only about race. You seem to be suggesting that, if privilege were real, all white people should be generally well-off. This is actually not what privilege suggests, at all. Even if we accept that privilege exists, we can still understand why a number of white people in the United States are impoverished, chronically un- or underemployed, poorly educated, disproportionately affected by drug dependency, and so forth. Privilege doesn't say that this can't happen, it just says that being white is more helpful than being anything else (particularly black), all else being equal. To which one might respond, "but all else is never equal." This is absolutely true. In fact, it is so true that it is really frustrating to me when people say things like "white people have it easier," because, while I get where that idea comes from, it obscures the fact that race is never the only factor. But as it happens, privilege accommodates this. In addition to racial privilege, we have a number of other things to consider, including but not limited to: class privilege gender privilege mental illness physical appearance sexuality All of which have a bearing on an individual person's life course. If you're white but extremely poor, your white privilege could conceivably work against you: people may judge you more harshly than a black person in similar circumstances, because the norm to which they are unconsciously comparing you sets a higher bar. But at the same time, it's often harder to escape from poverty if you're black. This is because people are quicker to associate poverty with blackness---and, consequently, the expectations set for poor black people are much lower, and there is less effort put into encouraging them to rise above their initial circumstances. Edited for clarity. Do you think black privilege exists like Kwark does? Well, I dunno. What does he mean by "black privilege"?
You gave an example of it in your original post. A poor black person may not be perceived as a failure in the same way that a poor white person might. Not every subjective experience of a black person will be more negative than those of a white person, that'd be crazy.
|
How is that a privilege? It's like saying a broken leg is a nice excuse for not winning a race. Okay great it's a legit reason but maybe the guy would rather not have a broken leg.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
