It begins with an announcement that the SPLC has taken down its page containing the so-called field guide to anti-muslim extremists, the one that includes Maajid.
https://www.splcenter.org/20161025/field-guide-anti-muslim-extremists = “page not found”
I wanted to briefly examine this section of the podcast:
At 9:02, Joe does a great job of breaking down the left’s response to discussions of race and IQ but there was a lot to flesh out here which didn’t get fleshed out.
”......Any discussion about race can’t be held unleses you repeatedly bring up all the instances of racism, suppression, and discrimination which that group has suffered from - it doesn’t exist as a statistical island, you have to bring EVERYTHING in together - if you don’t do that, that’s where their protest comes from…...............he (Ezra Klein) completely dismissed this fact that Asian people score FAR better.”
What is worth noting here is that only the difference in IQ between blacks and whites is deemed to be a problem, and something we should attempt to explain via historical narrative (oppression, racism, etc). Whites don’t really seem to care about Asians being smarter and earning more than them. Hispanics don’t really seem to care about whites being smarter earning more than them. Some of the more racist whites seem to care about European Jews being smarter and earning more than whites do, but I don’t think this group has much of any political capital. Apparently there are lot of black people who believe that them (as a group) earning less than whites is a big problem.
So given that it is generally only the gap between blacks and whites which people care about, it is the only gap which can be exploited for political reasons. People who support affirmative action or “positive discrimination” for black people are putting forward the premise that if some gap is due to unfairness, we must have a social policy to offset that.
So the obvious question is this: “Is if FAIR that East Asians have higher IQs than American whites?” Of course it isn’t “fair.” But many of these people on the left will say that because that unfairness is due to self-selection (the US selecting for Asian immigrants in the top half of their populations’ bell curve), we need not do anything about it. But of course, they have not applied that same logic to the selected group of African slaves who were brought to the US during the TransAtlantic slave trade, who were disproportionately sought after for physical strength as opposed to intelligence (to whatever degree those are mutually exclusive).....
Now, it should be noted that African Americans have much higher average IQ scores recorded than SubSaharan Africans, who account for the majority of slaves brought into America. So this means that even if the “far left” IS consistent in their examination of and commentary about the history of how various tribes ended up here in America, and those various selection processes, they are going to be left with absolutely zero evidence that the selection process could be dismissed in the case of African-Americans, but not with Asians…...(when it comes to IQ disparities).
The far left (the anti-liberal left) is afraid that the far right will peddle in racial politics to the same degree the far or even center left currently does…....there is no simpler explanation for the lack of consistency in the arguments of people like Ezra Klein or really any mainstream Democratic politician. It makes complete sense too, because with the overwhelming percentages which blacks vote Democrat, anything which pushes back on the victimization narrative, or encourages white people to vote as a block is a direct threat to their political power. The left is not out to “save the blacks”.....they are selfish actors just like the people on the right are, they have just been better at convincing people they are above base human instincts to maintain and expand power.
The problem is, the only way to expose this lack of consistency is to ask very specific and non-obvious questions to people like Ezra Klein, which Sam did at times, but I feel could have done a better job at, had he prepared more adequately.
There is one more element to this, which Maajid alluded to - the fact that people on the left project their propensity for centralized planning onto the right. My opinion on affirmative action is as follows and I suspect is shared by many people who also lean right:
“I would rather not have any of these social engineering policies enacted, BUT IF we’re going to say that people who have less ability to provide for themselves (for whatever reason) deserve to have social policies which give them a leg up, that should apply to people REGARDLESS of skin color.”
One cannot argue against that idea without exposing themselves as a racist or a political opportunist. This is the point which completely to me destroys any semblance of a “moral argument” for affirmative action. If a white guy has a 70 IQ and grew up in an abusive, neglectful home and his dysfunctional family dynamic goes back generations, is that any more or less fair than a black guy with a 70 IQ growing up in an abusive, neglectful home and his dysfunctional family dynamic goes back to the Trans-Atlantic slave trade? Is one situation worse than the other because their familial capital was destroyed by people who have a different skin color?
Those are the million dollar questions for people who support affirmative action policies which are based on immutable characteristics such as race. Despite Joe doing a good job of outlining the far left’s response to the discussion of race and IQ, he didn’t go far enough - the far left ROUTINELY treats racial groups as either statistical islands or as populations with tons of history which need be examined, based on whichever choice fits their political agenda.