Posts
Comments
"The fact of the matter is that the attack on white culture, the attack on civilized culture, on our history, is very real." You don't even seem to know your own history. There were absolutely 0 white people prior to the mid 16th century. Don't get me wrong, there were people of European descent, but they weren't called white until much later. And even then White didn't include Italians, Irish, Armenians, etc... So when you say "White Culture" I can only assume you mean "WASP" culture. And, for the record, correlating 'civilized culture' with 'white culture' is racist... again, open a god damn history book.
"Any time I apply for a job, they always ask what your race is." Really? What field do you work in, because that's not my experience. In any case, most companies AA policies don't come from government fiat, they come from the fact that teams with more diversity are more productive. So capitalism is the reason for that. "I know as a matter of policy that if they don't have enough people from this recognized group that they'll hire a less qualified applicant over me, because of that." No you don't. You don't know that at all. There is no AA law in the United States that allows that. Does this exist in your country? Are you sure?
"Just knowing the deck is slightly skewed against you, because of some myth of you coming from a dominant, patriarchal, whatever-it-is." And here's where it really comes out. You sire, can not see the numerous ways you are privileged. That's it. You can not see the way you are privileged and so jump right to the Fundamental Attribution Error. You assume your problems come from unfair advantages, but everyone else's comes from something 'innate' http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Correspondence_bias
"A good comparison is feminism once again." No this isn't a good comparison at all, it's a horrible comparison.
"The fact that we aren't allowed to have men's-only gyms" Are you more afraid of a woman raping you or a man raping you? That's what I thought.
"That we aren't allowed to have workplaces where men can fart" No such place exists. It would be a violation of basic human rights.
"Then there's the widespread attack on civilized values. ... Meanwhile ghetto culture is glorified. There's a consistent attack on people that obey the law. There's a consistent attack on people that contribute to society." I very much doubt this. This might be true by some operational definitions of "civilized" and "ghetto", but no... just no.
"European history, is nothing to be ashamed of." Actually there's a lot to be ashamed of in European history. If you don't think that you are sadistic.
"And yet it's only ever European society, the society that invented the concept of human rights" Actually it was a Middle Eastern society that first codified the rights of men. Where do you come up with this stuff.
"The society that eliminated slavery in the majority of the world, the society that spread medicine and education, and tried to uplift the poor, is the one that's always denigrated. " Societies have been doing this 'throughout history'
"How do you think whites feel? When we see that the interracial crime rate is even higher than that 7.5-to-8 times as violent." I think Whites feel like that shit happens to other people, because it does.
"There's actually more black-on-white hate crime than would be predicted by the innate levels of racial violence." Really? Because this would seem to disagree with you? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/15/fbi-hate-crimes-target-bl_n_1095465.html
"And most whites have experienced something where they were subtly threatened or just plain insulted by a group of blacks." You really can't see your racist assumptions here can you? Here are the questions. How many whites have insulted a white person? How many blacks are insulted by whites? what are the proportion of the population? You see where I'm going with this?
"So me, when I'm going to hire a doctor, if I see that you have black skin, I am going to assume on default that you got the job through affirmative action ... you're being treated like a child" Okay, so you are in fact a racist. This would have gone faster if you started with this.
"And then there's the attack on civilized values." You keep saying that! What does that even mean?
"the ghetto culture is killing the black race" The black race huh? Does that include Australian Aborigines? What about South Indians? How much "black" makes someone a member of this "race"?
"the glorification of the ghetto hip-hop culture" You clearly don't know anything about hip-hop. And equating hip-hop with anti-white is like equating punk with anti-black.
"It's not only insulting and bad for the whites living in the suburb, it's destructive and bad for the blacks living in the ghettos. Celebrating their underperformance, rather than encouraging them, to do the best that they can. " Wait, I thought encouraging them to do the best they can was "pointless"...
"individually? it makes sense to avoid large black gatherings if you're a white person, or even for that matter if you're a black person. Violence is more likely to happen at those sorts of places."
That's not actually what the statistics say, at all. You're still more likely to be harmed by a white person. Also, the locational aspect is not relevant.
According to similar statistics, by your reasoning, you should avoid being with your friends and being in a car with someone else, because /statistically/ that's more likely to result in harm.
"So is race realism racist? Well, not really." No, it's always racist as long as it assumes race is a relevant measure before digging into demography.
I really thought the fist time I commented would be about Kolmogorov Complexity or Quantum Mechanics... but this was too much. There are so many things wrong with this... I had to seriously ponder necroing this, but, no... just no.
"Racism. The term has essentially lost all meaning ... the original meaning of racism was." This is already incorrect. Our colloquila definition of racism is not /at all/ related to the original meaning. The original meaning was "The belief that humans are distinguishable by races." That is it. It is the belief that there is such a thing as race. Note, that already, 'race realism' is just another word for "racism", and studies that base things on race are definitionally racist by the "original meaning of racism".
You want the term racism to be "irrational unjustified hatred for the sake of hatred". Which already doesn't make any sense because it is completely devoid of the use of race... but perhaps I'm just being pedantic.
The problem with this is that it completely ignores the fact that racism was a 17th century invention of European colonialism. No one refers to White and Black people before Chattel Slavery in the United States. It is entirely and exclusively an invention of European Colonialism, and that is a historical fact.
So when we talk about 'race realism', we're studying "Is there a biological justification for a distinction invented to entrench colonial powers". That in and of itself is not a question without merit, but it has an extremely low Bayesian prior.
"When it comes to violence, there is a very large gap between white and black incidences of violence. " Sure this is true. However there is a strong correlation between a /bunch of really terrible shit/ and being black. Which given this: http://lesswrong.com/lw/8ey/learned_helplessness/ would suggest a very high likelihood for a strong correlation between increased crime and lower IQ. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0191886984900242
"it's between 7.5 and 8 times as likely that a black person will commit a violent crime as a white person. That is an absolutely enormous difference. And that fact is something that's important to remember in your day to day life. Just as you avoid high crime neighborhoods, it does make sense to avoid events where there's going to be a predominantly black population attending, just for your own safety." That's incorrect as it ignores the bas rate fallacy and the targets of crimes. You are more likely to be victimized by a White person than you are to be victimized by a black person regardless of your race. This is a simple Bayesian inference and should be obvious for anyone who follows LW/
"That's a fact... It's not racist, it's a fact." Yeah, sticking with the actual definition of racist, not your incoherent one... it's still racist even if it is a fact.
"Atlanta City. Between 1985 and 1997 they spent 2.1 ... Cato Institute." One attempt to equalize education, spending an unknown amount per pupil shows absolutely nothing from a rational and empirical standpoint. There are so many unknowns here that it could mean anything,
"The egalitarians insist that we are all absolutely identical, black slates at birth ... for some reason, one person makes a million dollars, and another person winds up in poverty, and that there's a systemic demographic pattern of this, that there must be some sort of evil force at play, holding the poor person down."
Yes, because the preponderance of evidence indicates that the demographic differences are small, and very unlikely to be innate. It is more likely from a rational and empirical standpoint that social factors are the cause.
"Now the pure fact of the matter is that if you take any two groups, and assign any variable to them that differentiates between the two groups, and measure outcomes, you're going to see different outcomes." That's only true in a trivial sense. If you took connected or unconnected earlobes for example and measured enough people you would see a difference. That's why statisticians have methods for determining the meaningfulness of these statistics. In the Bayesian world, the update would never be considered "strong", so we'd ignore the data because trying to use it for predictive purposes would probably make our models worse.
"Inequality of outcomes is inevitable because we are all unique. And when you put us into a demographic, yes, each demographic is going to have its own outcomes. " Actually, there's a bunch of strong predictors of income, and a strong wage disparity remains even when those things are controlled for.
"these rich grievance-industry government lobbyists are aligning partly on race. You also have feminism as another huge grievance industry" The amount of money contributed from social justice lobbies compared to corporate lobbies is so small that this statement is only true in bizarro land.
"this leads men to work harder than women at dirtier jobs, whereas women are more likely to stay home and raise kids, thus earning less income." Actually, when these factors are controlled for the pay gap remains... did you do any research before making this video? At all?
"Our foundational myth is the blank slate. And so if blacks are underachieving in school as a demographic and if they are more likely to go to prison as a demographic, we need to actually to come up with a theory of mind, a theory of evolution that explains these differences between the races." Or, rather than attempt to revolutionize cognitive science we can see what is staring us right in the face, and infer from very well established scientific results. Namely, black people bear outrageous conditions, and that has created learned helplessness in large portions of them.
"to fight this idiotic squandering of funds" I'm noticing a theme or "They're spendin' my taxpayer monies...". Any attempt to focus on this as a form of waste is premature optimization. http://lesswrong.com/lw/g8a/macro_not_micro/
"Because there are differences between races." Wait! You didn't establish this. You didn't even establish that they are measuring something meaningful. You pointed out two facts that are easily explained with learned helplessness. Did you even think of alternative explanations for the data set? I'm not even saying 'learned helplessness' is /the/ reason, it is simply more likely than "Colonialists conveniently had it right"