Page 10 of 12

Re: Race

PostPosted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 3:22 pm
by ohcac
No, actually, I have no opinion on this issue either way; since I haven't carefully assessed whether race and IQ can be defined properly, whether it is useful to regard race taxonomically, or how IQ correlates with success in an industrial society and whether hereditarianism holds true for IQ scores. I picked the picture out to convey something else that seemed strange to me.

Yes, the guy you banned was racist to the point of being a total cunt ("they know in their hearts that they are inferior"; what an ass!), and had "Jewish conspiracy" theories (probably via David Duke, the idiot who has been propping up radical Islamic leaders in the name of "anti-Zionism").

I know very well that it says in the rules to ban people for racism, but this seems very odd... this is a debate where somebody could conceivably take an intellectual position on an issue that is, when it comes down to it, *racist*. Namely, the view that races do not have equal cognitive function and that this is due to genetics (hereditarianism).

I haven't stated that I am a hereditarian, I'm merely stating: Whats the fucking point of this thread if nobody is allowed to take the opposite position to the status quo without being banned?

That is why I quoted *only* the part about the *banning* for racism and not any of the specific components of the debate. However, this is genuinely the only part I wanted to focus on and so was not quote mining.

EDIT: Yes, the picture was a little inaccurate for the situation, since you weren't "losing" the debate by any measure.

Re: Race

PostPosted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 3:46 pm
by Squawk
There is a big difference between stating that you perceive and can demonstrate that IQ is correlated with some aspect of physiology, and holding/demonstrating negative attitudes towards a particular group as defined by that physiology. The former is perfectly acceptable and is not racist. The latter is not tolerated.

Re: Race

PostPosted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 3:50 pm
by Noth
ohcac wrote:I'm merely stating: Whats the fucking point of this thread if nobody is allowed to take the opposite position to the status quo without being banned?


I hope it's clear that he wasn't banned for taking the opposite position (there are numerous heartfelt disagreements on this boards that can lead to quite spectacular word-slinging both ways) but simply for being an uncompromising racist. If those two seemingly went hand in hand, I assure you: he could have made his point without the racist slander. Heck, he'd probably still come across as an ass for it, but at least he would be an ass within the boundaries of forum rules.

Re: Race

PostPosted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 9:10 pm
by Aught3
ohcac wrote:I know very well that it says in the rules to ban people for racism, but this seems very odd... this is a debate where somebody could conceivably take an intellectual position on an issue that is, when it comes down to it, *racist*. Namely, the view that races do not have equal cognitive function and that this is due to genetics (hereditarianism).

I haven't stated that I am a hereditarian, I'm merely stating: Whats the fucking point of this thread if nobody is allowed to take the opposite position to the status quo without being banned?
The topic went on for 8-9 pages without anyone getting banned for stating their views on IQ and race. The racist statement that resulted in a ban was the part about Jews wanting to destroy economic order and ethnically cleanse other races - as was quoted.

Re: Race

PostPosted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 2:49 am
by Welshidiot
First:
thefreedictionary.com wrote:he,·red,·i,·ty (h-rd-t)
n. pl. he,·red,·i,·ties
1. The genetic transmission of characteristics from parent to offspring.
2. The sum of characteristics and associated potentialities transmitted genetically to an individual organism.

thefreedictionary.com wrote:he,·red,·i,·tar,·i,·an,·ism (h-rd-tà¢r--nzm)
n.
The doctrine or school that regards heredity as the primary factor in determining intelligence and behavior independent of environmental influences.




Next:
ohcac wrote:Yes, the guy you banned was racist to the point of being a total cunt ("they know in their hearts that they are inferior"; what an ass!), and had "Jewish conspiracy" theories (probably via David Duke, the idiot who has been propping up radical Islamic leaders in the name of "anti-Zionism").

I know very well that it says in the rules to ban people for racism, but this seems very odd... this is a debate where somebody could conceivably take an intellectual position on an issue that is, when it comes down to it, *racist*. Namely, the view that races do not have equal cognitive function and that this is due to genetics (hereditarianism).
Ok....well following JTB's line of "reasoning" for a moment, which genetic factors do you think are the ones responsible for giving Jews their power for concocting evil conspiracies? Is it IQ, or is it something else like eye colour, or penis size?

Re: Race

PostPosted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 9:10 am
by Thomas Doubting
Welshidiot wrote:...which genetic factors do you think are the ones responsible for giving Jews their power for concocting evil conspiracies? Is it IQ, or is it something else like eye colour, or penis size?


must be penis size!

Re: Race

PostPosted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 4:03 pm
by Welshidiot
It would appear that some of the originators of the notion of "race realism" centred their work around penis size,....as well as other bits and pieces:


"Philippe Rushton - when your academic integrity can go no lower..."



EDIT: If you don't want to watch the whole video, then the killer argument starts at 6:25.

Re: Race

PostPosted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 4:50 pm
by Prolescum
Ha! That's hilarious.

Re: Race

PostPosted: Sun Sep 18, 2011 11:34 pm
by ohcac
Hold on a second... I have a couple of questions. I thought the Rushton video was funny, but that aside, I am genuinely confused about a couple of issues I feel are central to this discussion:

1) Is it really true that the classifications of races are just... traditions? Has the hypothesis that these traditions, even if they are social constructions, still correlate at least somewhat to a genuine phenotypic or genotypic difference amongst different human populations, been falsified? I am sifting through Google Scholar, Scirus, and the Anthropology journals I can access via my university library but its difficult to find very relevant results.

2)This is more of an intuition question: wouldn't it be more anti-intuitive if, in the course of human evolution, *no* phenotypically identifiable groups of Homo sapiens sapiens arose and that these groups contained a different level of cognitive function? Does anybody have a more detailed analysis? :|

Any more direct sources would be greatly appreciated.

Re: Race

PostPosted: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:57 am
by Aught3

Re: Race

PostPosted: Mon Sep 19, 2011 2:09 am
by kenandkids
ohcac wrote: Is it really true that the classifications of races are just... traditions?


It's worth noting, if you are talking about the modern American racial categories, that they are just political constructs. Nixon had a committee create the terms and then applied them to society. "Hispanic" is especially stupid, because it takes people everywhere south of the USA and lumps them into a group, regardless of heritage or language. In fact, a dark-skinned Haitian who moves into America will be labelled a Hispanic, yet his children will all be legally labelled black or "African American" on paperwork.

Re: Race

PostPosted: Mon Sep 19, 2011 11:56 pm
by ohcac
The problem is that half of the debate is spent semantically disentangling anthropological egalitarian statements on race with the *a priori* conception of race that is referred to by hereditarians. Thank you very much for the article, Aught3, I found it quite helpful.

kenandkids wrote:It's worth noting, if you are talking about the modern American racial categories, that they are just political constructs. Nixon had a committee create the terms and then applied them to society. "Hispanic" is especially stupid, because it takes people everywhere south of the USA and lumps them into a group, regardless of heritage or language. In fact, a dark-skinned Haitian who moves into America will be labelled a Hispanic, yet his children will all be legally labelled black or "African American" on paperwork.


Unless there is potent evidence that hereditarians use Nixon's garbage definition of race or that the studies they refer to in their arguments do, I wouldn't count this sort of thing against them as a collective.

Re: Race

PostPosted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 3:56 pm
by Welshidiot
Firstly:

"Race realism" = Racism

Even "race realists" eventually have to admit that point, as we shall see later.




Next:

Many of you are probably aware that there has been a lot of racist talk on Youtube of late, and one of the most popular racists recently, is a woman going by the name HeyRuka: http://www.youtube.com/user/HeyRuka (Btw notice that her featured video admits to her being a racist)

Well HeyRuka has come to the attention of a delightful little neo-nazi group called "Stormfront"! You may have heard of them as they are probably the number one site for neo-nazis, white supremacists, racists, anti-semitists, etc, etc, etc.....

A member at Stormfront decided to post one of HeyRuka's latest videos, and express their support for her message of white supremacy.
Unfortunately some other members of Stormfront decided that HeyRuka looks a little too Jewish, and then an argument erupted.....which eventually led to HeyRuka apparently sending a message to said forum via one of the current members (HeyRuka's post is the eighth one down): http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... en&ct=clnk

BobChaos23 has put together a good, concise video on the topic:



So I have a question for anyone reading this who has "race realist" tendencies....

Are you really prepared to keep running with this "race realist" ball, when doing so means you're going to have to hold hands with Nazis, neo-nazis, rabid anti-semitists, holocausts deniers, holocaust supporters, members of the KKK, people who think that "Slavs are subhuman", etc, etc, etc.....?

Exactly how disgusting are your potential allies going to have to be before it turns your stomach?

Re: Race

PostPosted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 7:05 pm
by televator
I had a feeling this race realism was to racism, as intelligent design is to creationism. I followed the HeyRuka drama and am not surprised by the elbow rubbing with white supremacists.

Re: Race

PostPosted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 8:16 pm
by ImprobableJoe
You've got to just love the fact that racists say that they aren't racist, they are just "telling it like it is"... but they sound exactly like racists from 50, 100, 1000 years ago. Fucking assholes.

Re: Race

PostPosted: Fri Sep 23, 2011 9:06 pm
by Dean
@ImprobableJoe
ImprobableJoe wrote:[. . .] racists say that they aren't racist, they are just "telling it like it is"... but they sound exactly like racists from 50, 100, 1000 years ago. [. . .]

I am no fan of modern racism, as you may recall. I am also, however, not a great advocate of "political correctness", as you frequently appear to allude to, among other things. Especially if there was in actual fact evidence to support the claims of racists, i.e. ones on this forum, or rather more accurately, the ones on this forum that you have decided to call racist. If there was - and there's NOT, by the way ; before you can accuse me of racist comments - I would not deny it.

I suspect that this documentary may interest you, and James Watson touches on the issues at around 29:18 of this program.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 6177531815

With that said, there is always the statement that Squawk made, which would appear to be eerily adequate here, and appears to align with some of my general views. I guess it may be similar to the response that Watson gave to the political opposition that he faced after his reports on the "connection" between physiology and intelligence. See here {Squawk's post}. Watch 29:18 of that video if you didn't quite get the reference to James Watson.

Re: Race

PostPosted: Fri Sep 23, 2011 9:36 pm
by ImprobableJoe
Dean wrote:I am no fan of modern racism, as you may recall. I am also, however, not a great advocate of political correctness, as you frequently appear to allude to.

Wha...?

"Political correctness" is a phrase mostly used by racists, bigots, and various and sundry assholes to dismiss fair criticism. If that's part of your position, I'm pretty sure I don't need to bother with the rest.

Re: Race

PostPosted: Fri Sep 23, 2011 9:38 pm
by Welshidiot
Dean wrote:Especially if there was in actual fact evidence to support the claims of racists, i.e. ones on this forum, or rather more accurately, the ones on this forum that you have decided to call racist. If there was - and there's NOT, by the way ; before you can accuse me of racist comments - I would not deny it.
Dean....This is one of the most impenetrable paragraphs I've ever read. Perhaps you should read it again, and rewrite it, but this time bear in mind that you're conversing with people outside your head, people who don't know what you meant to say beforehand.

Re: Race

PostPosted: Fri Sep 23, 2011 9:41 pm
by ImprobableJoe
Welshidiot wrote:
Dean wrote:Especially if there was in actual fact evidence to support the claims of racists, i.e. ones on this forum, or rather more accurately, the ones on this forum that you have decided to call racist. If there was - and there's NOT, by the way ; before you can accuse me of racist comments - I would not deny it.
Dean....This is one of the most impenetrable paragraphs I've ever read. Perhaps you should read it again, and rewrite it, but this time bear in mind that you're conversing with people outside your head, people who don't know what you meant to say beforehand.


Yeah, I had a hard problem understanding his post, so I just focused on the bit that I think I understood... although maybe I got that wrong too... :lol:

Re: Race

PostPosted: Fri Sep 23, 2011 9:47 pm
by WarK
Have mercy on us non-native English readers :lol: