My claim is that race is just one of the many genetic causes of different outcomes between humans that lead to Inequality. By dwelling on just one, you are just allowing the Left to shift to another dimension.
My claim is that race is just one of the many genetic causes of different outcomes between humans that lead to Inequality. By dwelling on just one, you are just allowing the Left to shift to another dimension.
Different outcomes can have many different genetic sources, sure.
But as you have been told, race is not a single genetic factor, it's a compilation of different traits and those traits on average give different outcomes.
I don't see why you try to pretend otherwise.
The specific genetic differences that lead to various outcomes are largely accepted, no one wonders why a very tall man is becoming a pro basketball player.
But if you say that someone is having a bad outcome in our society because his race has low intellect you will get into a lot of trouble.
Even though it's technically the same thing, there is just too much emotion attached to the second case.
Being able to recognize such a thing is very important for our society because we cannot waste ressources on "problems" that cannot be solved and we cannot allow people into certains position of society when they do not possess the necessary qualities.
I actually think it's tightly coupled: people are unwilling to accept some conclusions that would apply generally (not just the race factor) precisely because they reject the conclusion about races.
We're not dwelling on one. We're answering the questions everyone else either refuses, or answers with deranged blood-libel conspiracy like "it's systemic racism that causes the black-white IQ gap!" You say that it's best to remain quiet on this, as if the past sixty years of remaining quiet never happened. As if we have no real-life record of the dire costs of silence and lies.
Race realism is the only possible inoculant against a further resurgence of Kendi'ism, or something worse.
I never said that “it’s best to remain quiet on this one.” You are confusing me with someone else.
Kendi'ism is only one of dozens of Left-Center ideologies that focus on equality. The Left will just shift to one of the others. Race realism will achieve nothing.
And, yes, all the people who are replying to me appear to want to “dwell on just one dimension of human genetic inequality.”
It's because there's already no taboo on any of the other things you're suggesting, so any attempt to say we need to focus on them is unnecessary. They have not failed to resonate because of a lack of focus. They have failed to resonate because the thing that actually explains people's questions is the thing nobody's allowed to talk about.
Yea, there are taboos on all the other things as well. By focusing on only one genetic factor, you are diluting the impact of the argument and make it easier to ignore.
To the extent there are other taboos related to things like freedom of association, they're directly downstream of hereditarianism. You can't make the case for freedom of association in the post-civil-rights age without making the case for the hereditarian origins of group differences.
No, that is not my argument.
I never said anything about “harmony!”
Nor do I believe that harmony will ever come.
LOL
My claim is that race is just one of the many genetic causes of different outcomes between humans that lead to Inequality. By dwelling on just one, you are just allowing the Left to shift to another dimension.
So race realism accomplishes nothing.
Different outcomes can have many different genetic sources, sure.
But as you have been told, race is not a single genetic factor, it's a compilation of different traits and those traits on average give different outcomes.
I don't see why you try to pretend otherwise.
The specific genetic differences that lead to various outcomes are largely accepted, no one wonders why a very tall man is becoming a pro basketball player.
But if you say that someone is having a bad outcome in our society because his race has low intellect you will get into a lot of trouble.
Even though it's technically the same thing, there is just too much emotion attached to the second case.
Being able to recognize such a thing is very important for our society because we cannot waste ressources on "problems" that cannot be solved and we cannot allow people into certains position of society when they do not possess the necessary qualities.
I actually think it's tightly coupled: people are unwilling to accept some conclusions that would apply generally (not just the race factor) precisely because they reject the conclusion about races.
We're not dwelling on one. We're answering the questions everyone else either refuses, or answers with deranged blood-libel conspiracy like "it's systemic racism that causes the black-white IQ gap!" You say that it's best to remain quiet on this, as if the past sixty years of remaining quiet never happened. As if we have no real-life record of the dire costs of silence and lies.
Race realism is the only possible inoculant against a further resurgence of Kendi'ism, or something worse.
Nope. Reread my comments.
I never said that “it’s best to remain quiet on this one.” You are confusing me with someone else.
Kendi'ism is only one of dozens of Left-Center ideologies that focus on equality. The Left will just shift to one of the others. Race realism will achieve nothing.
And, yes, all the people who are replying to me appear to want to “dwell on just one dimension of human genetic inequality.”
That is pretty damn obvious.
It's because there's already no taboo on any of the other things you're suggesting, so any attempt to say we need to focus on them is unnecessary. They have not failed to resonate because of a lack of focus. They have failed to resonate because the thing that actually explains people's questions is the thing nobody's allowed to talk about.
Yea, there are taboos on all the other things as well. By focusing on only one genetic factor, you are diluting the impact of the argument and make it easier to ignore.
To the extent there are other taboos related to things like freedom of association, they're directly downstream of hereditarianism. You can't make the case for freedom of association in the post-civil-rights age without making the case for the hereditarian origins of group differences.