|
Post by Christine on Mar 28, 2017 7:27:48 GMT -5
"Elitist" is a good word for it.
I didn't read the book. I'm just going on the excerpts:
He talks about how people should "logically" respond to his "findings." Yeah, even though that's not how people respond to the idea that race and intellect are correlated. His findings contribute to racism, notwithstanding all of his "reasons" why people should carry on the way they always have, nothing to see here, just pretend we're not saying black people are stupider than white people. LOL, okay, yeah, sure, and fuck you Murray.
How he says "many blacks are smarter than many whites" as though this is somehow news? Or is it a really cool second place prize for blacks? Or is it just that there are enough stupid whites that some blacks are going to beat them out? Gee, thanks, you fucking fuck.
I can't believe people even study this shit, treating people/race like dogs/breeds: "Which is the smartest?" Gross.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Mar 28, 2017 7:44:34 GMT -5
How he says "many blacks are smarter than many whites" as though this is somehow news? Or is it a really cool second place prize for blacks? Or is it just that there are enough stupid whites that some blacks are going to beat them out? Gee, thanks, you fucking fuck. That bit is part of a response to what the writers see as likely criticisms and misunderstandings of their arguments. Indeed, I noted it in response to Ohio's statement that the book is arguing that all whites are genetically superior to all blacks. That's not at all what the book argues. Not even close. So the authors were pretty much correct in this regard: people were going to (did) misrepresent their arguments. As you say, you haven't read the book, so you're missing a shit-ton of context here. The passages I quoted are 300+ pages into the book. And the fact of the matter is that they did dive head first into a very contentious field of inquiry and offer conclusions that could easily elicit emotional responses. And again, I don't think the book is right in it's gross conclusions at all. But it should be criticized for what is actually in it, not for what people mistakenly believe is in it.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Mar 28, 2017 7:49:10 GMT -5
And again, I don't think the book is right in it's gross conclusions at all. But it should be criticized for what is actually in it, not for what people mistakenly believe is in it. What a radical notion.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Mar 28, 2017 7:58:18 GMT -5
You know me, Mr. Radical...
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Mar 28, 2017 7:58:39 GMT -5
"Elitist" is a good word for it. I didn't read the book. I'm just going on the excerpts: He talks about how people should "logically" respond to his "findings." Yeah, even though that's not how people respond to the idea that race and intellect are correlated. His findings contribute to racism, notwithstanding all of his "reasons" why people should carry on the way they always have, nothing to see here, just pretend we're not saying black people are stupider than white people. LOL, okay, yeah, sure, and fuck you Murray. How he says "many blacks are smarter than many whites" as though this is somehow news? Or is it a really cool second place prize for blacks? Or is it just that there are enough stupid whites that some blacks are going to beat them out? Gee, thanks, you fucking fuck. I can't believe people even study this shit, treating people/race like dogs/breeds: "Which is the smartest?" Gross. So... your argument is that logic is irrelevant and we should not study things that make people feel bad or might produce problematic results. You're taking individual excerpts, ignoring the context the author carefully builds around those statements (exactly as the SPLC does - they fish the most inflammatory (in isolation) sentences out of their surrounding paragraphs) and signaling your virtue by expressing how sickened you are that someone could think thoughts that should not be thunk. Let me be non-coy - I think Murray is a racist. I think his career and his associations make it very likely that he does, down deep, believe that some races are "better" than others and that blacks rank at or near the bottom. He carefully qualifies his findings and layers disclaimers upon the most contentious ones to make it harder to pin him down as a racist, but I suspect if you got him alone in a room with friends talking, you'd hear him admit that he thinks the world would be a better place if white folks were left in charge. Here's the problem - none of that actually invalidates his findings. You can take issue with his conclusions, especially the political recommendations he makes based on them, but not a single protester, not a single critic of his work, not a single person in this thread, has pointed to any errors of fact in Murray's work, only how very upset they are that he makes these statements, or even engages in this research.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Mar 28, 2017 10:17:31 GMT -5
So... your argument is that logic is irrelevant and we should not study things that make people feel bad or might produce problematic results. No, that's not my argument. He is explaining to everyone how they should "logically" respond to his "findings," and I think it's pretty clueless of him to think (if he really does think) that he can give everyone a few pointers on how to respond and cover his bases on the what-if-people-use-this-to-justify-racism front. Look at this from Wiki: Right, because people just need a warning, and a reminder of all the other important human attributes, and we'll all stop ranking ourselves and comparing ourselves to each other like we've been doing since the dawn of fucking civilization. It's lame. I *do* think it's a stupid thing to study, not because the results might make people "feel bad." If the potential results were problematic but there was some, I don't know, POINT, then I'd be less critical. But I don't see the point, at all. Even it were proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that one race was genetically inferior to another, what would one do with such information? Simply... *know* it? Also note that I put the word "findings" in quotes, because I have read enough in this thread/links to understand the consensus is that his study doesn't support his conclusions. I don't care what anyone thinks, but I care what they do, especially with bad information. This is not "virtue signaling," and I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't presume my motives.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Mar 28, 2017 10:34:59 GMT -5
No, that's not my argument. He is explaining to everyone how they should "logically" respond to his "findings," and I think it's pretty clueless of him to think (if he really does think) that he can give everyone a few pointers on how to respond and cover his bases on the what-if-people-use-this-to-justify-racism front. Let's suppose, hypothetically, that we did learn that intelligence is partially a product of genetics, and that some population groups have a higher average innate intelligence. I don't think you can honestly say that that proposition is outside the realm of possibility. What I understand you to be saying is that we shouldn't investigate that, and even if true, should not know it, because it has only bad applications. You're right, if it were true, it could certainly be used to justify racism. It's a fraught topic, which is why few researchers who don't want to be labeled as racial supremacists will even touch it. But understanding our genes, our minds, and the degree to which environment and heredity shapes our intelligence, our skills, and our potential is ultimately necessary to human advancement. And you can't keep things from being studied or known by trying to put a topic off-limits because it might be used for bad purposes. You only make sure that the only people who will research it are the people who are likely to use it for bad purposes. What findings, what conclusions? "I want to vomit! Gross!" is virtue signaling.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Mar 28, 2017 14:14:01 GMT -5
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. I don't play coy, I don't make accusations and I certainly don't dance around for you or anyone else. I don't shuffle, scratch where I don't itch, avert my eyes or cringe when an a White man wallowing in his tub of White privilege wants me to. I always say what I mean like a man and no trolling internet cipher such as yourself is qualified to question my manhood. You've tried to ridicule, belittle and bully me into submission, Amadan, and as you always have, you've failed. Miserably and totally. The Bell Curve is pornography, racist porn for freaks. Murray and his his dead buddy are porn peddlers serving up eugenic sleaze and White supremacist stroke material for sickos. It was that way in 1994 and it's no less so in 2017. Agree or disagree, like it or lump it, makes no difference to me. I am not trying to convince you of anything, inform you of anything or even debate with you about anything. Your opinion is meaningless and your sneering disdain less than that. I will never buck dance or eye roll to entertain a troll. The Bell Curve was written for people like you. Little tin gods trolling around debate boards with zero facts, zero sources, zero credibility, but overloaded with smug self-importance, blustering braggadocio, vain conceit and a fatal dosage of testosterone poisoning. I met guys like you in 1994 and their arguments were as transparent and weak then as yours is now. "We've explained why we don't think it's racist."There is your entire contribution to this thread succinctly summed up in eight words. You don't think The Bell Curve is racist . I do think The Bell Curve is racist. The telling difference between these two diametrically opposing viewpoints is throughout this thread I've provided supporting sources, links, and authoritative corroboration to support my case. You? Zero. Zero sources. Zero links. Zero corroboration. Zero facts. Same as it ever was. Yeah, we're done here. Or to be direct, I'm done with you.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Mar 28, 2017 14:28:33 GMT -5
What a lot of words. In big boldface letters even. All emoting, projecting, reflecting, dancing, and namecalling, but no actual engagement. Things are so because you say so.
No, it's not.
No, you haven't. You've posting other people's opinions and made no arguments of your own, or even addressed any matters of fact, you've just spewed vitriol when invoking the "r" word doesn't cow people who dare to disagree with you.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Mar 28, 2017 15:52:34 GMT -5
Let's suppose, hypothetically, that we did learn that intelligence is partially a product of genetics, and that some population groups have a higher average innate intelligence. I don't think you can honestly say that that proposition is outside the realm of possibility. What I understand you to be saying is that we shouldn't investigate that, and even if true, should not know it, because it has only bad applications. You're right, if it were true, it could certainly be used to justify racism. It's a fraught topic, which is why few researchers who don't want to be labeled as racial supremacists will even touch it. But understanding our genes, our minds, and the degree to which environment and heredity shapes our intelligence, our skills, and our potential is ultimately necessary to human advancement. And you can't keep things from being studied or known by trying to put a topic off-limits because it might be used for bad purposes. You only make sure that the only people who will research it are the people who are likely to use it for bad purposes. What a load of crap. First, you skipped over the entire middle of my post where I asked the same fucking question. Second, I seriously doubt there are researchers wishing they had the freedom to study the possibility that blacks are genetically intellectually inferior to whites. Third, it's "necessary for human advancement"? That's so precious. "I want to vomit! Gross!" is virtue signaling. Uh, no, it isn't. It's expressing disgust at something I find disgusting. And I most certainly did not use exclamation points. You might want to reacquaint yourself with the definition of virtue signaling. And trolling, while you're at it. I missed that "like a man" bit in your response to ohio before. WTF is wrong with you, Amadan? Like a man? As opposed to... a boy? A woman? Jesus Christ.
|
|
|
Post by CG Admin on Mar 28, 2017 16:17:00 GMT -5
WTF is wrong with all of you? Read the forum rules, again.
All three of you--Ohio, Amadan, Christine--seem to agree that Murray is some sort of racist. One would such common ground would mean something. Guess not.
Regardless, nothing is really happening here, so I'm going to lock the thread. Send me a note if anyone really thinks they have something important to say.
|
|