|
Post by nighttimer on Mar 27, 2017 14:24:15 GMT -5
The SPLC's labeling of Murray as a "white nationalist" is part of the "why" behind the protest this thread is about, a protest that turned violent. As evidenced by the discussion here and by Ms. Stranger's op-ed, the people citing the SPLC's characterization don't actually know jack about Murray or The Bell Curve, they just know that the SPLC calls him a "white nationalist," even though--as I demonstrated upthread--Murray doesn't fit that label, as defined by the SPLC. That's better support for my accusation than the SPLC is offering for calling Murray a "white nationalist," better support than anything you are offering in defense of the same. Or is the SPLC's and your slander okay, simply because of who the target is? You must be joking. Your feeble "defense" of Murray is based upon the spurious suggestion, " The Bell Curve says Asians are smarter than Whites so therefore it can't be racist" clumsily steps around the racist canards it is based upon. All you're doing is demonstrating your antipathy for the SPLC calling out Murray's racism. Nothing more. Venting one's spleen may serve a therapeutic need, but in a reasoned debate it don't mean jack.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Mar 27, 2017 14:29:47 GMT -5
I posted the link, so the better question is, did you read it? Yes. You haven't presented a single fact. Stating "X is racist" is not a fact, no matter how many times you repeat it. First, "filibuster" does not mean what you think it means. Second, you haven't made any arguments. You're just emoting. There is nothing to attack. That's why I'm asking for facts. It has been pointed out to you that the Bell Curve does not say what you keep claiming it says, by people who (unlike you) have actually read it. That means: (a) We're lying. (b) We misunderstood what the Bell Curve is actually saying. (c) You're wrong. Which is it? And if (a) or (b), you should be able to point at the words that are wrong/dishonest. It has been pointed out to you that Charles Murray is not a "white nationalist" in any meaningful way, both according to his own words and the SPLC's definition. That means: (a) Charles Murray is lying. (b) We don't understand the SPLC's statement. (c) You're wrong. Which is it? And if (a) or (b), you should be able to point at the words that are wrong/dishonest.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Mar 27, 2017 14:53:38 GMT -5
You haven't presented a single fact. Stating "X is racist" is not a fact, no matter how many times you repeat it. Neither is stating "X isn't racist" because you say so repeatedly. The difference is I've repeatedly backed up my assertion with facts. You haven't even once. Which equals=ZERO FACTS. Same as it ever was. First, "filibuster" means exactly what I said it means. You're obfuscating, speechifying, and spinning. But you're not debating because debate isn't simply attacking the debater, but the argument. You haven't and the entire "I know you are but what am I?" ploy is the evidence of this. I dealt with this back on Page 2 and Page 5 you're still falling back on that b.s. Typical. The temptation is to reply (a) and (b) but I'll go with "b", Alex. You misunderstood what The Bell Curve is actually saying. Fortunately, I (and others) did not. The temptation is to reply (a) and (b) but I'll go with "b", Alex. You misunderstood the SPLC's statement as well as the SPLC's facts.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Mar 27, 2017 15:12:17 GMT -5
Neither is stating "X isn't racist" because you say so repeatedly. But we've explained why we don't think it's racist. Gone into the weeds about what Murray is and is not actually claiming. No, you have not. You have expressed your opinion. You haven't once actually pointed to actual words in the book, or words stated by Murray, and said "This is racist and this is the reason why." You have only stated that Murray and his book are racist because you don't like what you think it says. Taking ten seconds to dismiss your emotive statements and point out that they have no grounding in facts is not much of a filibuster. Come now. If you want to call me a liar, sack up and do it, don't say "I'm tempted to but I won't." This the closest you've come to citing facts. Well done. Of course, those still aren't facts, they are dissenting opinions, but you're getting warmer. Now, if we agree that drawing conclusions about individuals based on demographic averages is problematic, then if you can pin Murray down on advocating such a policy, you (or rather, Scientific American) has a point. Murray does advocate ending Affirmative Action, and he claims it's because it won't help a population that is cognitively disadvantaged. A contentious assertion, to be sure. But he goes to lengths (as he describes in the rebuttal you keep claiming you read) to point out that he is not saying that cognitive disadvantage is wholly biological , or linked to any one race's "inferior" genes. You can make an argument that if the impact of a policy disproportionately falls on one group, it's racist. That's a reasonable, if debatable, position, but it's not the one you've taken. You can also claim Murray is entirely wrong about there being significant differences in cognitive ability between populations, but then you'd need actual facts to dispute his findings. Or you can just say that being anti-Affirmative Action is racist. But that's clearly an opinion, not a fact. Okay. What is the basis for claiming Murray is a white nationalist, since he denies it and there does not seem to be any evidence of him belonging to, or advocating, white nationalist policies?
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Mar 27, 2017 15:33:25 GMT -5
But we've explained why we don't think it's racist. Gone into the weeds about what Murray is and is not actually claiming. No, you haven't. All you've said is in your own words: "WE don't think it's racist." That is proof of nothing but your own belief and what's that supposed to mean? Sorry , but I'm not going into the weeds with you to dissect a 23-year old debunked piece of junk science. My expressed opinion has been backed by supporting documentation. Yours have not. You say you've read Murray's rebuttal to the SPLC, but quoted nothing from it. You say the SPLC is wrong in describing The Bell Curve as racist and Murray as a White nationalist, but provided nothing beyond your opinion to buttress your opinion. Zero Facts, but lots of empty bloviating and emptier filibustering. Same as it ever was. Neither is the five seconds it takes to point out at no point in this entire debate have you offered anything remotely resembling a fact, but plenty of uninformed opinion. Come now. If you want to call me a liar, sack up and do it, don't say "I'm tempted to but I won't."
When you're lying I'm not shy to say it. I just agreed with you that you're wrong and misunderstood the book. If you don't like your own answers don't ask your questions. Where on the other hand, you remain stone cold. For someone who likes facts so much you sure come up short on providing any. Oh, the Pioneer Fund for one. I think Richard Lynn for two. I think Charles Murray burning a cross when he was a younger Charles Murray and then saying he hand no clue it was racist for three.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Mar 27, 2017 15:52:23 GMT -5
"Nuh-uh" is not a rebuttal. No, your expressed opinion has been backed by other opinions. You have yet to engage any of the actually falsifiable claims presented. What do you want me to quote, specifically? The whole thing is here. No, only the latter. I think the Bell Curve has potentially racist implications, though its central premise is not inherently racist. But reasonable people can disagree there. We are not in agreement, as that is not what I said. He responds to that in several paragraphs in his rebuttal. Personally, I think his rebuttal is a bit weak here, since he doesn't deny the Pioneer fund, and Richard Lynn, had racist ends. But he's correct when he points out that the source of a study's funding, or an academic's political leanings, does not inherently discredit their findings. I had to go to Wikipedia to see what you were on about cross burning. There's one citation there about an alleged stunt he pulled as a teen. Even if you think he's lying about it not being meant as racist at the time (lighting a couple of sticks of wood with firecrackers and marshmallows), the fact that he held and possibly still holds racist attitudes still does not make him a white nationalist. "White nationalist" and "Possibly holds racist beliefs" are not the same thing. You have danced up to and around calling me (and, really, everyone who disagrees with you) a racist - would you claim we are all white nationalists?
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Mar 27, 2017 16:46:07 GMT -5
You must be joking. Your feeble "defense" of Murray is based upon the spurious suggestion, " The Bell Curve says Asians are smarter than Whites so therefore it can't be racist" clumsily steps around the racist canards it is based upon. All you're doing is demonstrating your antipathy for the SPLC calling out Murray's racism. Nothing more. Venting one's spleen may serve a therapeutic need, but in a reasoned debate it don't mean jack. Well first off, I'm not defending Murray, I'm criticizing the SPLC's characterization of him as a "white nationalist." And in that regard, I said this upthread: I've also explicited allowed that Murray could still be a racist annd/or a bigot. But being labeled a "white nationalist" is a pretty specific accusation. Again, this is how the SPLC defines "white nationalist": Here's Wiki on the term: Here's Merriam-Webster: Generally speaking, white nationalism tends to involve people looking to preserve "the white race," people who see whites as not only superior to other races but also deserving to have control over the nation. So...show me where Murray advocates any of this stuff, where he argue that the USA is a "white nation," that the "white race" needs to protect itself, that members of the white race should not breed with other races. Because that's the kind of stuff that characterizes white nationalism. The SPLC has offered nothing in the way of evidence that Murray is a white nationalist, just links to the Pioneer Fund. If a link is sufficient evidence, then Hillary Clinton is a racist (Fulbright) and Obama is an anti-Semite (Wright). So how about you? Show me some evidence of Murray espousing white nationalist views, not bigoted views, not racist views, but white nationalist views. That's what you're defending, that's what the SPLC is claiming. Let's see some evidence.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Mar 27, 2017 17:23:09 GMT -5
"Nuh-uh" is not a rebuttal. Citation where I said that. Link where I said that. Quote where I said that. Making shit up is a real nasty habit you have but it isn't a rebuttal. Whereas your are backed by another poster. Not impressed. Says you. Maybe you just don't read well. Good. Now you know what its like. What findings? The findings of a dead right-wing psychologist and a living right-wing sociologist who lacked the credentials for the task he undertoook and didn't submit his findings to any scientific journals or for peer review? The trashed findings of a trashy book written by two trashy bigots for trashy people in need of an ego stroke that their superiority complex is scientifically justified. As Geneticist David Botstein explained why he wasn't interested in refuting Herrnstein and Murray, " The Bell Curve is so stupid that it is not rebuttable.” It's not as big a leap as you might delude yourself from racist attitudes as a punk kid to evolving into a White nationalist as a grown-ass man, or haven't you heard of Steve Bannon? As much as you rely on Wikipedia, I rely on other sources. The original kind that can't be so easily molde into fitting anyone's skewed version of history and fact about burning sticks of wood with fucking firecrackers and fucking marshmallows. Sure. After seeing what a pile of dog droppings Murray grew up to be why would anyone associate his past as being a prologue? I need to claim nothing and I've called you nothing. You already know what you are.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Mar 27, 2017 17:44:01 GMT -5
Well first off, I'm not defending Murray, I'm criticizing the SPLC's characterization of him as a "white nationalist." Yo u're doing both and you've done so repeatedly. Yes, and when it is accurate it certainly should be applied to someone like Murray. By the way, where's the part in The Bell Curve where Murray explicitly rejects eugenics? Oh, you want me to come up with a definition of White Nationalism that fits your Wikipedia/Merriam-Webster definition? You want me to come up with a quote of Murray is race-babbling about creating a "White nation" or saving the "White race" as if he were upping his post count at Stormfront or VDARE or there's no proof he's a racist? We're not playing this game, robeiae. Nothing compels to play this particular game by the ever-changing rules you and Amadan dream up. This has got nothing to do with Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama because neither one have written a book expousing eugenic junk science. Neither Clinton or Obama are getting innocent bystanders hurt by showing up on college campuses still beating the drum for a debunked piece of trash like The Bell Curve. It's not fon me to prove to your satisfaction the SPLC is right. You haven't proven they are wrong besides you say they are. It's not for me to prove Murray didn't grow up to be a racist shitbag. It's on you to prove in writing a book claiming 35 million Black Americans are intellecutally inferior to Whites isn't inherently racist. The respectable racism of a Charles Murray transcends casual bigotry or overt displays of racism. It's a far more subtle, genial and outwardly acceptable version of that same old White nationalist/supremacist bullshit. Nobody can make you see in 2017 what you were so obviously blind to in 1994.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Mar 27, 2017 19:40:04 GMT -5
Yes, and when it is accurate it certainly should be applied to someone like Murray. How is it accurate? That's still the question, one you haven't answered, one the SPLC doesn't answer, aside from roundabout connections. Shouldn't a white nationalist be espousing a white nationalist ideology? There are many white nationalists who are more than happy to be called such, who are more than happy to make it clear that such a label fits them. I'd say that from around page 311 to 315, the authors make it pretty clear that they're not proposing any sort of eugenics program. From there: If the reader is now convinced that either the genetic or environmental explanation has won out to the exclusion of the other, we have not done a sufficiently good job of presenting one side or the other. It seems highly likely to us that both genes and the environment have something to do with racial differences. What might the mix be? We are resolutely agnostic on that issue; as far as we can determine, the evidence does not yet justify an estimate.
We are not so naive to think that making such statements will do much good. People find it next to impossible to treat ethnic differences with detachment. That there are understandable reasons for this only increases the need for thinking clearly and with precision about what is and is not important. In particular, we have found that the genetic aspect of ethnic differences has assumed an overwhelming importance. One symptom of this is that while this book was in preparation and regardless of how we described it to anyone who asked, it was assumed that the book’s real subject had to be not only ethnic differences in cognitive ability but the genetic source of those differences. It is as if people assumed that we are faced with two alternatives: either (1) the cognitive difference between blacks and whites is genetic, which entails unspoken but dreadful consequences, or (2) the cognitive difference between blacks and whites is environmental, fuzzily equated with some sort of cultural bias in IQ tests, and the difference is therefore temporary and unimportant.
But those are not the only alternatives. They are not even alternatives at all. The major ethnic differences in the United States are not the result of biased tests in the ordinary sense of the term. They may well include some (as yet unknown) genetic component, but nothing suggests that they are entirely genetic. And, most important, it matters little whether the genes are involved at all.And: If it were known that the B/W difference is genetic, would I treat individual blacks differently from the way I would treat them if the differences were environmental? Probably, human nature being what it is, some people would interpret the news as a license for treating all whites as intellectually superior to all blacks. But we hope that putting this possibility down in words makes it obvious how illogical—besides utterly unfounded—such reactions would be. Many blacks would continue to be smarter than many whites. Ethnic differences would continue to be differences in means and distributions; they would continue to be useless, for all practical purposes, when assessing individuals. If you were an employer looking for intellectual talent, an IQ of 120 is an IQ of 120, whether the face is black or white, let alone whether the mean difference in ethnic groups were genetic or environmental. If you were a teacher looking at a classroom of black and white faces, you would have exactly the same information you have now about the probabilities that they would do well or poorly.
If you were a government official in charge of educational expenditures and programs, you would continue to try to improve the education of inner-city blacks, partly out of a belief that everyone should be educated to the limits of his ability, partly out of fairness to the individuals of every degree of ability within that population—but also, let it be emphasized, out of a hardheaded calculation that the net social and economic return of a dollar spent on the elementary and secondary education of a student does not depend on the heritability of a group difference in IQ. More generally: We cannot think of a legitimate argument why any encounter between individual whites and blacks need be affected by the knowledge that an aggregate ethnic difference in measured intelligence is genetic instead of environmental.And: In sum: If tomorrow you knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that all the cognitive differences between races were 100 percent genetic in origin, nothing of any significance should change.Seriously, how can this--especially the last--be reconciled with favoring eugenics? This again goes to the point I was making--and Stranger was making in her op-ed--earlier in the thread: many people criticizing The Bell Curve (and Murray) haven't done their homework, haven't read the material. I can see I lot of stuff in the above that I think is wrong-headed, to be sure, but that's not a guy promoting eugenics. It's certainly not a white nationalist, imo (if it is, he's disguising this completely). Lol. The portion of the book I just quoted is proof positive that you don't have a clue what you're talking about here. From it, in case you missed it the first time through: That's what it actually says in The Bell Curve. What it doesn't say is that all blacks are intellectually inferior to all whites. I realize that's what you very much want it to say, so you can criticize it with no effort, but it doesn't say that. And I'm not changing any rules. You have yet to offer any evidence that Murray is a white nationalist, that he espouses such an ideology. The SPLC doesn't offer any such evidence. Hey, if you find a clip from Murray where he says some shit like what was in Ron Paul's newsletters--as a for instance--let me know. I'll retract my objections and agree with the label. Barring such evidence "Murray is a white nationalist" is a completely unproven assertion.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Mar 27, 2017 21:56:37 GMT -5
Each and every one of those italicized excerpts makes me want to vomit.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Mar 27, 2017 23:15:23 GMT -5
Each and every one of those italicized excerpts makes me want to vomit. Why? What are your specific objections?
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Mar 28, 2017 6:25:05 GMT -5
Maybe it's the font?
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Mar 28, 2017 6:29:10 GMT -5
"Nuh-uh" is not a rebuttal. Citation where I said that. Link where I said that. Quote where I said that. Making shit up is a real nasty habit you have but it isn't a rebuttal. Your repeated rejoinders of "No, you. No, you're bringing zero facts. No, it's on you to refute my points." Etc. Reflection and projection, which makes up a good 3/4 of your participation here. Stop being ridiculous - everyone here, even you, knows that "Nuh-uh" is not a literal quote (hence my not putting it in a quote box) but a summary of your response. And it's an accurate one. Again, this is not an argument. This is not how debate, or honest intellectual engagement, works. Just repeating that something is racist because it's racist because so racist because racism is. Not. An. Argument. It is entirely possible that racist attitudes as a punk kid will evolve into racist attitudes, and even white nationalism, as an adult. But the fact that a punk kid did something arguably racist is not, ipso facto, evidence that he is a white nationalist as an adult. So randomly throwing out anecdotes, insults, and random associations with other white people you don't like, is. Not. An. Argument. So, you have a source other than Wikipedia about Charles Murray burning crosses as a kid? Why don't you share that source? Mrs. Maxwell sounds like an unpleasant person, but randomly bringing up other racist white people is. Not. An. Argument. ETA: I initially read that as "desegregationists," so my apologies to Mrs. Maxwell. My point stands, however - anecdotes about racism are perhaps personally compelling, but irrelevant to the discussion. No one here is denying that racism exists, or that racists are bad. You are being coy. Like I said before, if you want to make accusations, then don't dance around them, say what you mean like a man. It's not like we're face to face, you don't even have to look me in the eye.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Mar 28, 2017 6:55:18 GMT -5
Each and every one of those italicized excerpts makes me want to vomit. Seriously though, vomit away (though I'm not sure what could possibly be the "why" behind some of that upchucking). This a pretty old debate, really. Murray and Hernstein (the co-author, who is dead by the way, and was pretty well respected as an academic throughout his lifetime) were adding a "new" potential wrinkle to the "nature v. nurture" debate, truth be told. They made a number of assumptions and went with a lot of other assumptions that were common at the time of their research. I think a lot of that was exposed at the time of the publication of the book and even more has been across the last 20+ years. And yeah, I read all of the back and forth at the time, including Gould's stuff, which in the moment I found absolutely devastating to The Bell Curve. Now I'm more ambivalent about this, truth be told. My biggest problem with The Bell Curve, however, has always been the concept of race. That was my problem with it when it came out, that's my problem with it today. I don't believe it's well-defined. And given that the book is using another less-than-secure concept--IQ--in relation to race, I don't think there's much to be gleaned from the book, with respect to intelligence and genetics. And that's really the angle that winds people up. Apart from that, I think there's value in the book, from the questions raised to the attempts at finding answers. And I will, in fact, defend Murray in one important way: he engages with his critics. He always has. He tries to respond to criticisms, to defend his points of view. I don't think he always comes out on top in this regard, but he does make a real effort, imo. All that said, this thread was initially about a bunch of people (students) who turned to violence to protest Murray speaking, not about the shit in The Bell Curve, but about a different book, entirely. And these protesters seemed to have very clearly formed an opinion of Murray based on what other people were telling them. That's not free thinking, that's not what we should hope for at out institutions of higher learning, imo. And the SPLC's page on Murray--which I think very obviously informed the opinions of these protesters or informed the opinions of the people who informed the protesters (*couch* faculty *cough*)--labels him a "white nationalist" with zero evidence to back it up. Zero. Again, white nationalism is a specific ideology. It's adherents are all about protecting/saving "the white race." There's no evidence that Murray thinks this, that he has ever said something consistent with this ideology. Doesn't mean he's not a bigot or a racist. He still might be. I personally think he's just an elitist, though I wold allow that he comes across as being a serious bigot in certain moments, so for all practical purposes, that label can at least be supported, I think.
|
|