‹ First  < 11 12 13 14 > 
 
   
 

The necessary evil of racial identity politics for whites

 
Garret
 
Avatar
 
 
Garret
Total Posts:  491
Joined  16-01-2019
 
 
 
20 January 2019 11:47
 
Abel Dean - 20 January 2019 10:55 AM
Garret - 20 January 2019 10:38 AM

If we have different definitions, and you say object A is an orange, and I say object A is an apple, wouldn’t our conclusions be at odds with each other, and wouldn’t we have difficulty communicating about the properties of apples and oranges?

If we can’t agree on a categorization of a thing, then we can’t agree on how that category of things compares to other things.

Based on what you just said, I can say the following:

There is no objective difference between the races and hence it is impossible to say that black people are more or less intelligent than white people.

Since you just said I can define these categories how I like, you would have to agree that the previous statement is correct.  If you want to show me wrong, then you would have to demonstrate that my categories are incorrect.

Yeah, the thought experiment does not work so well if you decide to drastically change definitions on a whim, much like if you claimed that applies are really citrus fruits after I give you permission to choose a definition that suits you, and that is a way to defeat the thought experiment, or at least a way to dodge it. If you would like to confront the thought experiment in good faith, then I suggest choosing whatever fuzzy social definitions of “black” and “white” that you use in your day-to-day life outside of race debates, at least temporarily for the sake of the thought experiment.

Actually, it’s evidence that your thought experiment sucks.

I don’t make conclusions about people’s genetic influence on their intelligence in my general day to day life.  You’ve proposed conclusions about the genetic causes of intelligence on large swaths of the population.  Either you have evidence to back this up or you don’t.  I’m expressing skepticism, because while I am no expert on genetics, I know enough to be highly suspicious of the claims you’ve made.

Either your genetic claims are true or false.  I’m asking for evidence that your genetic claims are true.

You keep asking me to accept your premise, and I’m telling you that I don’t.  I’m asking you to justify it.  You keep avoiding doing that, and just asking me to accept it as true.  Just asking me isn’t going to get me to change my mind.  You have to show me evidence.

 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15839
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
20 January 2019 12:37
 
Garret - 20 January 2019 11:47 AM
Abel Dean - 20 January 2019 10:55 AM
Garret - 20 January 2019 10:38 AM

If we have different definitions, and you say object A is an orange, and I say object A is an apple, wouldn’t our conclusions be at odds with each other, and wouldn’t we have difficulty communicating about the properties of apples and oranges?

If we can’t agree on a categorization of a thing, then we can’t agree on how that category of things compares to other things.

Based on what you just said, I can say the following:

There is no objective difference between the races and hence it is impossible to say that black people are more or less intelligent than white people.

Since you just said I can define these categories how I like, you would have to agree that the previous statement is correct.  If you want to show me wrong, then you would have to demonstrate that my categories are incorrect.

Yeah, the thought experiment does not work so well if you decide to drastically change definitions on a whim, much like if you claimed that applies are really citrus fruits after I give you permission to choose a definition that suits you, and that is a way to defeat the thought experiment, or at least a way to dodge it. If you would like to confront the thought experiment in good faith, then I suggest choosing whatever fuzzy social definitions of “black” and “white” that you use in your day-to-day life outside of race debates, at least temporarily for the sake of the thought experiment.

Actually, it’s evidence that your thought experiment sucks.

I don’t make conclusions about people’s genetic influence on their intelligence in my general day to day life.  You’ve proposed conclusions about the genetic causes of intelligence on large swaths of the population.  Either you have evidence to back this up or you don’t.  I’m expressing skepticism, because while I am no expert on genetics, I know enough to be highly suspicious of the claims you’ve made.

Either your genetic claims are true or false.  I’m asking for evidence that your genetic claims are true.

You keep asking me to accept your premise, and I’m telling you that I don’t.  I’m asking you to justify it.  You keep avoiding doing that, and just asking me to accept it as true.  Just asking me isn’t going to get me to change my mind.  You have to show me evidence.

A troll, that’s all he is.

 
LadyJane
 
Avatar
 
 
LadyJane
Total Posts:  3322
Joined  26-03-2013
 
 
 
20 January 2019 13:40
 

“The art of knowing is knowing what to ignore.”  - Rumi

 
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17606
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
20 January 2019 13:52
 
burt - 20 January 2019 12:37 PM

A troll, that’s all he is.

Maybe. But he’s kept a taboo subject that is normally dismissed as evil with zero discussion going for about 50 pages across multiple threads. I’ve found it all very interesting.

 
 
Nhoj Morley
 
Avatar
 
 
Nhoj Morley
Total Posts:  6356
Joined  22-02-2005
 
 
 
20 January 2019 16:27
 
burt - 20 January 2019 12:37 PM

A troll, that’s all he is.

Your dissatisfaction is noted, burt. Please leave the floor show to us.

 
 
Garret
 
Avatar
 
 
Garret
Total Posts:  491
Joined  16-01-2019
 
 
 
20 January 2019 18:15
 
LadyJane - 20 January 2019 01:40 PM

“The art of knowing is knowing what to ignore.”  - Rumi

One of the downsides of a very liberal policy on free speech is that if you allow someone to spout hateful things freely and without remark, you are condoning their ability to spread such ideas.

And I don’t mean this in the generic sense of allowing to speak in our broader society, but rather specifically hosting, and thereby promoting, their speech and ability to do so.  If your neighbor puts up signs in his own yard, that’s one thing.  They are allowed to do that.  It’s when you give them permission to put signs in your yard that you now own what they say as well.

 
LadyJane
 
Avatar
 
 
LadyJane
Total Posts:  3322
Joined  26-03-2013
 
 
 
20 January 2019 19:19
 
Garret - 20 January 2019 06:15 PM
LadyJane - 20 January 2019 01:40 PM

“The art of knowing is knowing what to ignore.”  - Rumi

One of the downsides of a very liberal policy on free speech is that if you allow someone to spout hateful things freely and without remark, you are condoning their ability to spread such ideas.

And I don’t mean this in the generic sense of allowing to speak in our broader society, but rather specifically hosting, and thereby promoting, their speech and ability to do so.  If your neighbor puts up signs in his own yard, that’s one thing.  They are allowed to do that.  It’s when you give them permission to put signs in your yard that you now own what they say as well.

I understand what you’re saying but this isn’t my yard.  This yard belongs to Mr. Harris and hinges on its patrons to govern themselves accordingly.  Mr. Dean hasn’t yet violated any of the fairly simple Guidelines and we aim to keep threads in the Halls of Critical Thinking on topic and free of personal insults.

Any rambunctious activity can be sorted in The Klein Bottle.

 

 
 
Abel Dean
 
Avatar
 
 
Abel Dean
Total Posts:  427
Joined  03-11-2017
 
 
 
20 January 2019 19:43
 
Garret - 20 January 2019 06:15 PM
LadyJane - 20 January 2019 01:40 PM

“The art of knowing is knowing what to ignore.”  - Rumi

One of the downsides of a very liberal policy on free speech is that if you allow someone to spout hateful things freely and without remark, you are condoning their ability to spread such ideas.

And I don’t mean this in the generic sense of allowing to speak in our broader society, but rather specifically hosting, and thereby promoting, their speech and ability to do so.  If your neighbor puts up signs in his own yard, that’s one thing.  They are allowed to do that.  It’s when you give them permission to put signs in your yard that you now own what they say as well.

If public spaces can maintain a distinction between hosting diverse opinions and advocating for them, then so can private spaces. That distinction has long been accepted within i.e. private universities. That distinction is now getting abandoned among the younger generations of authoritarians, and I think that is unfortunate. The blurring of the distinction is now pushed on every platform and every medium: book publishers, web hosts, newspapers, social media, and now both public and private schools. If they host it, then they advocate for it? It is now even pushed on banks. Paypal cut its ties with the anti-Islam website JihadWatch after liberal activism. It seems to be ideological tyranny through private means. Twitter mobs are accumulating the power to starve to death anyone who says the wrong thing too often. On the other hand, many social media sites have no choice but to exercise some degree of ideological censorship, or else their platforms would become mere playgrounds of the Alt Right, and that would effectively kill the platform. This forum does not seem to face that risk. Sam Harris has recruited only the most intelligent and freest thinkers to his fan base, and we are willing to put money toward his cause of critical thinking. This forum self-evidently represents the higher tiers of contributors from many diverse perspectives. I suggest we don’t lose that diversity.

 
Nhoj Morley
 
Avatar
 
 
Nhoj Morley
Total Posts:  6356
Joined  22-02-2005
 
 
 
21 January 2019 03:18
 
Abel Dean - 19 January 2019 10:45 PM

People will believe anything to preserve their dogmas. We need to come to grips with the probable objective realities as they are, and fast. The dogmas need to be illuminated and shamed, focusing on the halls of academia.

I suspect that every poster involved in this thread would agree with this view including the sense of urgency. We all seem convinced that we can see each other’s dogma as plain as day. It is likely that everyone carries some unwanted embedded dogmatism around like a dysfunctional gene.

A clear path of reasoning shows a dogmatic bump-out like a protruding occipital bun. Posters see these and get angry. Hopefully, beneath this hostility lies a genuine desire to help each other out. Like here, we want to tell Mr. Dean that his straight tech talk is deflected by a sort of mental magnetism of an emotionally driven perception of white people and/or non-white people.

You may disagree, Mr. Dean, but it remains the bump in your course where the path is not paved with science. I invite you to spend a post expanding on your view of white people (with all the mentioned genetic and geographical specificity granted) and their long-term accomplishments and what makes us the genetic top model for the other races. No need for statistical data, just your impression. I must compliment your gracious and level-headed presentation.

There are few patrons who would say that their view is guided by anything other than science and facts. If that were true, every thread would be a group hug. But no, we offer each other thought-splicing to weed out undesired and inferior components of our arguments. The variations in splice-advice must mean there is some mental magnetism in the criticism as well. Apparently, we must weed-out the defects in the weeding-out of the defects.

If we cannot do this with our ideas, what makes you think we can do it with our genes?

As a trioonist, I am convinced that any race can render any other race stupider or smarter (test-wise) merely by how it treats them. That may take two generations or ten, depending on the sturdiness of the culture. The discrepancies come from racial interaction and not intercourse. At this point of our progress of understanding genetics stuff, the white-splice seems a hasty, short-sighted gamble horrifying in its potential for disaster.

 
 
Nhoj Morley
 
Avatar
 
 
Nhoj Morley
Total Posts:  6356
Joined  22-02-2005
 
 
 
21 January 2019 03:28
 
Abel Dean - 20 January 2019 07:43 PM

  This forum does not seem to face that risk. Sam Harris has recruited only the most intelligent and freest thinkers to his fan base, and we are willing to put money toward his cause of critical thinking. This forum self-evidently represents the higher tiers of contributors from many diverse perspectives. I suggest we don’t lose that diversity.

We’ll take that as a compliment. Aw, shucks…

Tolerance for such diversity should involved more than a tempered application of cross-hostility. It should include, at least for the moment of hearing, the painful and personal heresy that someone else may be being slightly more critical than me. That is what separates the open mind from the perceptual foyer. Just sayin’

 
 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15839
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
21 January 2019 05:17
 
GAD - 20 January 2019 01:52 PM
burt - 20 January 2019 12:37 PM

A troll, that’s all he is.

Maybe. But he’s kept a taboo subject that is normally dismissed as evil with zero discussion going for about 50 pages across multiple threads. I’ve found it all very interesting.

There are at least two reasons the subject is taboo: (1) Not politically correct; (2) The impossibility of having objective measures. The former reason is an unfortunate reality, the second is because we don’t know how to get representative populations and sort out all the external factors that can have influence.

 
nonverbal
 
Avatar
 
 
nonverbal
Total Posts:  1805
Joined  31-10-2015
 
 
 
21 January 2019 05:26
 
Abel Dean - 20 January 2019 07:43 PM

. . .

. . . This forum self-evidently represents the higher tiers of contributors from many diverse perspectives.

Think that’s why Dr. Harris no longer prominently links this forum in his dot-org endorsements?

 
 
Nhoj Morley
 
Avatar
 
 
Nhoj Morley
Total Posts:  6356
Joined  22-02-2005
 
 
 
21 January 2019 05:33
 
nonverbal - 21 January 2019 05:26 AM

Think that’s why Dr. Harris no longer prominently links this forum in his dot-org endorsements?

To keep out the riff-raff?

We need the secret Harris handshake to get in here.

The Boss will be just a few miles down the Boulevard next week. He is welcome to stop in for coffee. I’ll be sure to ask him.

[ Edited: 21 January 2019 05:37 by Nhoj Morley]
 
 
Abel Dean
 
Avatar
 
 
Abel Dean
Total Posts:  427
Joined  03-11-2017
 
 
 
24 January 2019 09:28
 
nonverbal - 21 January 2019 05:26 AM
Abel Dean - 20 January 2019 07:43 PM

. . .

. . . This forum self-evidently represents the higher tiers of contributors from many diverse perspectives.

Think that’s why Dr. Harris no longer prominently links this forum in his dot-org endorsements?

Any link will soon be a 404, because according to Sam Harris the forum is in the process of being moved, if I remember correctly.

 
nonverbal
 
Avatar
 
 
nonverbal
Total Posts:  1805
Joined  31-10-2015
 
 
 
24 January 2019 10:12
 
Abel Dean - 24 January 2019 09:28 AM
nonverbal - 21 January 2019 05:26 AM
Abel Dean - 20 January 2019 07:43 PM

. . .

. . . This forum self-evidently represents the higher tiers of contributors from many diverse perspectives.

Think that’s why Dr. Harris no longer prominently links this forum in his dot-org endorsements?

Any link will soon be a 404, because according to Sam Harris the forum is in the process of being moved, if I remember correctly.

Was that a few months ago, or more recent?

 
 
‹ First  < 11 12 13 14 >