Race Realism: Critical understandings

What do you really want?

People to accept race realism as factual.

Facts are used to support policies. So, what's the corresponding policy? Here's how it usually goes: "Black people's lives suck because, by and large, black people suck. There is no problem with observed racial disparities. They are an expected and natural consequence of the inferiority of black people. Black people are to blame for their problems. Combating systemic racism will do little to improve the lives of the black population as it is not the true cause of their problems." The policies being pushed are generally a laissez-faire approach to racism. Generally, just do nothing.

How am I doing so far?

You didn't answer the question. You are deliberately withholding information. Generally when someone withholds information the reasonable inference is that the information withheld is damaging to their position. Didn't deny it, therefore guilty.

What do you really want?

People to accept race realism as factual.

This tells us all we need to know. The focus of any intellectually honest person is to enhance their own understanding of the facts, not on getting others to accept theirs.

Mesmer, I will grant that in my experience most people that criticize Race Realism do so by applying the argumentum ad consequentiam fallacy or they criticize the proponents with ad hominems. This makes it hard to find any source that tries to criticize the idea from a more scientific view.

However, I must ask why, if you do not wish to engage with the political aspects yet, after all you said "Policy discussion happens *after* people agree that race realism is a reality", why did you post this in the political forum instead of the science one?

If you wish for discussion on the merits of the idea of race realism irrespective of the politics around it then it does not make much sense to post in the politics forum.

Policy discussion happens *after* people agree that race realism is a reality.

I've spent 100s of hours learning about race realism, understanding the concepts involving it from scratch (SNPs, fst values etc.) and understanding all the opposing arguments to it (more variation between than within, social construct, red-lining, lead poisoning, bad schools etc.)

so people resort to other tactics to deflect/derail the discussion (as we've seen Double R do multiple times)

Even if it is true, the policy implications are negligible and the factual inquiry is therefore moot.

 Stop derailing this thread.

Can you point to one of these “multiple” instances where I’ve ever done this?

Which makes this all the more concerning. You call it ad hominem because you are unwilling to take an honest look at how your words should be viewed by any rationally thinking person.

The central idea of race realism is that there exists clear empirical evidence that some races are superior to others. The question of why this matters to you is very important to the conversation, because to most it is completely irrelevant to government policy so it just comes off as an excuse to spread racist rhetoric.

The idea that all men were created equal is not a literal statement, all men are not. Some are taller, some are stronger, some are smarter. If we were able to somehow test everyone on earth in any given category, it’s not plausible that each racial group would score the same. Someone has to be at the bottom of that list, and someone has to be at the top. But again… so what?

The point of that statement and one of the founding principals of this country is that everyone is *treated* equally, meaning that we ensure everyone has an equal, or as close to an equal *opportunity* to succeed as possible. So unless you intend to challenge these principals there is no situation where the alleged superiority or inferiority of any race plays any role in that discussion.

I'll talk about what I want to talk about. Do something about it. 

BTW you've made no case. You've presented no evidence. You haven't even made a cognizable factual claim. You're pretty far off from convincing anybody.

BTW you've made no case. You've presented no evidence. You haven't even made a cognizable factual claim. You're pretty far off from convincing anybody.

You haven't addressed anything in the OP or thread's topic. You've attempted to derail the conversation into policy, which isn't the topic. Why would I need to present evidence on an irrelevant topic, one of which I haven't made arguments for at all in this thread?

I wasn't talking about policy. I was talking about your desire for "people to accept race realism as factual".

cognizable factual claim

I've claimed multiple things in the OP that are cognizable.

 Even if it is true, the policy implications are negligible and the factual inquiry is therefore moot.

1. Race has absolutely nothing to do with nature.  What we call nature, is the result of the psychological effect of ingratiation in a particular culture.  All human beings are created equally; race is an irrelevant factor to distinguish them.  The subjective meaning human beings attach to race is the result of that culture, as well. 
   
2. What you are calling racial differences are no such thing.  They are cultural differences, manifested by the observance of human behavior that itself is product of what I described in No. 1, above. 
   
3. You propose a theory of human nature, that people "balkanize based on race" by some kind of "default."  This is unpersuasive.  Aside from the fact that you have no evidence whatsoever to support your position, human cooperation is something that biologically predates the manifestation of race in homo sapiens.  The history, for example, of cross-breeding between denisovans, neanderthals and homo sapiens alone is sufficient to demonstrate that your argument is false.  For, if it were true, that cross-breeding would have never happened; they would have either killed each other or been killed.  Yet, they interbred to the point that they were indistinguishable from one another --- no small part of why a large percentage of modern people have the genetic remnants of each pre-modern human species in their genetic code.  
   
4. Anti-racism, as that term is understood among the lot of woke-type fools, is stupid, sure.  But this is hardly groundbreaking.  
   

That sounds like a bunch of bullshit.  

1. Race has absolutely nothing to do with nature.  What we call nature, is the result of the psychological effect of ingratiation in a particular culture.  All human beings are created equally; race is an irrelevant factor to distinguish them.  The subjective meaning human beings attach to race is the result of that culture, as well. 
   

2. What you are calling racial differences are no such thing.  They are cultural differences, manifested by the observance of human behavior that itself is product of what I described in No. 1, above. 

3. You propose a theory of human nature, that people "balkanize based on race" by some kind of "default."  This is unpersuasive.  Aside from the fact that you have no evidence whatsoever to support your position, human cooperation is something that biologically predates the manifestation of race in homo sapiens.  The history, for example, of cross-breeding between denisovans, neanderthals and homo sapiens alone is sufficient to demonstrate that your argument is false.  For, if it were true, that cross-breeding would have never happened; they would have either killed each other or been killed.  Yet, they interbred to the point that they were indistinguishable from one another --- no small part of why a large percentage of modern people have the genetic remnants of each pre-modern human species in their genetic code.

Anti-racism, as that term is understood among the lot of woke-type fools, is stupid, sure.  But this is hardly groundbreaking.  

Not really, largely because "race realism" is an amorphous thing that isn't clearly defined. What do you mean, specifically?

I reiterate that you've made no case to support it nor have you presented any evidence. You need evidence.

are the policy implications negligible? How many tens of billions of dollars have been spent trying to bring about equity in the United States when if race realism is true, this simply isn’t possible? The social implications are greater still. Right now any racial inequality is assumed to be the result of racism. If race realism is true, we know that at least some of it is not due to racism.

I get why it is an extremely uncomfortable topic to talk about and I would also prefer to sweep it under the rug. But if we must have a “conversation about race” that requires a discussion of all of the facts. 

Yes. The claim is usually that black people (or whatever alleged inferior race) are, on average, genetically predisposed to being inferior. Usually the claim has to do with intelligence and/or a predisposition for criminality. Lets accept those alleged facts as true for purposes of discussing the policy implications. Now combine those alleged facts with the undisputed facts - the observed racial disparities and you then have the question - To what extent are the observed racial disparities caused by innate inferiority as opposed to adverse racial discrimination? It would be reasonable to assume that both factors were contributing. Yet, even if there is racial correlation to a predisposition to some innate inferiority, racial discrimination would still (in most cases) be an injustice that should be mitigated through policy.

So, what's wrong with racial discrimination in the first place? Lets say that you're a sole proprietor and you desire intelligent workers without criminal propensity. To that end, you implement a racially discriminatory policy, that you will not hire black people. What's wrong with it? It's your business. It's your money. Perhaps you should be able to do what you want with your property, at least that's what the libertarians say. Nonetheless, even supposing it is your right, that does not make it right - And it is still wrong, even assuming the fact that being black is correlated with low intelligence and criminal propensity. And why is it wrong? It's wrong because people are worthy of better treatment than products where we may shop according to brand without any further investigation. With power comes responsibility, and it's wrong because it's an unnecessary unfairness that can be easily avoided by minimal inquiry on the employer's part in to the prospective employee's background. For example, filtering out the stupid and criminally inclined may be done simply by adequately interviewing prospective employees and conducting criminal background checks, etc.

In any case, the point I'm trying to get across is that public policy should favor fairness, which would generally be against racial discrimination despite the fact that there may be some innate inferiority that is correlated with race.

I don't think most racial discrimination is even like that. It comes across more as some in-group favoritism thing to me rather than a racial hatred thing. Blacks especially are seen as different. Perhaps it is because they look the most different, and perhaps it is because the American population is bombarded with media indicating that blacks are a different and unique people, separate from the rest of the population. It's unfortunate that so much of that media was made with good intentions. Perhaps if the media presented blacks like Geordi La Forge rather than Will Smith there would be substantially less racial discrimination.