Race Realism: Critical understandings

Author: Mesmer

Posts

Total: 320
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
Race realism is slowly becoming accepted by mainstream thought. In days gone by, a lot of people believed race wasn't a valid concept, whereas today that view is held only by fringe, ideological extremists. Nowadays, the focus of the discussion has shifted towards implications of accepting race realism, which is a far more productive conversation.

Nonetheless, here are some critical tenants about understanding race realism:

1) It's entirely possible to find people of any race to be good natured. There are good natured and bad natured people of every race, and this fact does not detract from the message race realism attempts to disperse (that racial differences are real).

2) The economic benefits of importing well-to-do foreigners is pitted against the cultural degeneracy of waning identity and decreased societal trust. There is great debate as to which has more impact, but both certainly have impacts.

3) By default, people balkanize based on race and it takes a lot of conditioning to have a chance of shifting this default. Even if people learn to "tolerate" each other, often they still build communities wherein they cater to their racial/cultural groups and generally avoid other races/cultures (e.g. shops in different languages, religious-based food etc.) Most critically, acknowledging this fact has nothing to do with any race being superior to another.

4) More controversially, anyone who is an "anti-racist" gets blown to bits at elections. If your group is voting based on fairness and principles, and you come across a group of equal size voting based on their race, at best you'll get an even playing field if you win, but a racially biased system (against you) if you lose. Eventually, you'll lose enough elections to where the race-based group has majority control and implements policies that are not fair.

I hope these understandings help you comprehend race realism better.
dfss9788
dfss9788's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 152
1
2
2
dfss9788's avatar
dfss9788
1
2
2
What do you really want?
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@dfss9788
What do you really want?
People to accept race realism as factual.

dfss9788
dfss9788's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 152
1
2
2
dfss9788's avatar
dfss9788
1
2
2
-->
@Mesmer
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?
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@dfss9788
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?
I agree that some race realists can argue like this. 

However, this is all after the fact and I certainly haven't argued this in the OP. You are perfectly capable of disagreeing with your quoted arguments but agreeing with race realism. Currently, most people are not race realists, despite the overwhelming evidence supporting it, so we should address that premise first, before discussing what policies should be involved if given that premise.

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. 
dfss9788
dfss9788's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 152
1
2
2
dfss9788's avatar
dfss9788
1
2
2
-->
@Mesmer
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.
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@dfss9788
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.
Your question isn't what the OP is about. Policy discussion happens *after* people agree that race realism is a reality. You're moving the goalposts by demanding that I provide airtight governmental policy with race realism. As to what governmental policy should be applied when race realism as accepted is entirely irrelevant to the validity of race realism.

If you want to discuss policy after race realism is accepted, make your own thread about it and stop derailing this one.

Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,227
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Mesmer
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
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@Double_R
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.
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.) I'm almost certain that race realism is as valid a concept as other commonly accepted things. I could be wrong about race realism, but I haven't seen an argument come close to debunking what informed race realists actually argue.

If you're interested in discussing the actual topic, instead of Ad homming and wasting everyone's time, feel free to post something worthwhile.

TheMorningsStar
TheMorningsStar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 398
2
3
7
TheMorningsStar's avatar
TheMorningsStar
2
3
7
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.
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@TheMorningsStar
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.
After reading most of the mainstream arguments against race realism, I think the reason most people engage in those fallacies is that opposing race realism is an indefensible position, so people resort to other tactics to deflect/derail the discussion (as we've seen Double R do multiple times). Smarter people, such as Sofia Rune and TheSkepticalHeretic, derail the argument by getting heavily caught-up in minutiae semantics, rather than just engaging in logical fallacies. Even the top-tier opposition of race realism (James Flynn, Richard Lewontin etc.) tend to have their scientific arguments devolve into 'you're racist' or something of the equivalent.

As I continue to see race realism land blow after blow, as I don't find the "experts" who have the answer to these questions, it becomes more and more likely that this view is simply indefensible, let alone plagued with people who simply don't want people to accept race realism, and will do anything to attack it.

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.
It's a political topic. I've chosen to address the validity of it, based on current misconceptions about it. That's the political element. I haven't addressed the policies that would result from it because that's a whole other discussion, and again, involves first accepting race realism.

Of all the things to be upset over, this seems quite petty.

dfss9788
dfss9788's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 152
1
2
2
dfss9788's avatar
dfss9788
1
2
2
-->
@Mesmer
Policy discussion happens *after* people agree that race realism is a reality.
Even if it is true, the policy implications are negligible and the factual inquiry is therefore moot.
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,227
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Mesmer
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.)
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.
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,227
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Mesmer
so people resort to other tactics to deflect/derail the discussion (as we've seen Double R do multiple times)
Can you point to one of these “multiple” instances where I’ve ever done this?

Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@dfss9788
Even if it is true, the policy implications are negligible and the factual inquiry is therefore moot.
The thread's OP is about clearing race realism conceptions. I assume that because you've refused to engage in the thread's topic, you agree that race realism is true. If you want to argue that the "policy implications" are "negligible" or "moot", go make another thread and discuss that there. Stop derailing this thread.

dfss9788
dfss9788's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 152
1
2
2
dfss9788's avatar
dfss9788
1
2
2
-->
@Mesmer
 Stop derailing this thread.
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.
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@Double_R
Can you point to one of these “multiple” instances where I’ve ever done this?
Yep. You've already ad hommed me in this thread, which you should be able to find.

You've also ad hommed me in this thread by inferring that I was a racist Racism is a nonsense, malicious term (debateart.com) .

I've yet to have a discussion with you wherein you abstain from ad hom. Perhaps this is where you will do better.

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.
Ad hominem is a logical fallacy which makes whatever you are arguing logically invalid -- you are already incorrect. If you don't have any response to the OP, just don't post anything rather than resorting to ad hom and wasting people's time.

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.
You have a false conception of race realism. Race realism is about outlining the differences between racial groups. That's it. If you want to argue that one racial group is superior to another, then that's another argument. Sure, some race realists will argue certain races are superior (or commonly: more superior at certain things), but that is not a necessary facet of race realism.

It's funny that you asked me where you derail/deflect the topic, yet you continue to attack with slanderous nonsense like 'racist'. Perhaps your time would be better spent actually engaging in race realist discussions, rather than attempting to slander with ad homs and other derailments/deflections.

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?
You say "so what?" yet you continue to be belligerent with your slanderous labels of 'racist' and variations of it. So, even you don't agree with your 'so what?' as you've become very upset over mere discussion of race realism. So which is it? Is it 'so what?' or is discussion of race realism important?

Also, you've actually agreed with the singular and core tenant of race realism: "it’s not plausible that each racial group would score the same". The discussion should be over there -- we agree. You don't have to argue that any race is superior than another, or that we need to deport people of a certain race, or we need to ban certain races from entering your country. You're already a race realist.

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.
Again, racial superiority/inferiority isn't a core tenant of race realism.

You don't understand race realism to such an egregious extent that you don't realize you're already a race realist, despite attempting to argue against it.
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@dfss9788
I'll talk about what I want to talk about. Do something about it. 
Settle down, keyboard warrior.

If you don't want to talk about the thread's topic, why post in it lol? Again, go make your own thread, if that's what you want to discuss.

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?

It's adorable that you want to be a keyboard warrior, but go somewhere else because we've had our laugh now.
dfss9788
dfss9788's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 152
1
2
2
dfss9788's avatar
dfss9788
1
2
2
-->
@Mesmer
What do you really want?
People to accept race realism as factual.
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".
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@dfss9788
I wasn't talking about policy. I was talking about your desire for "people to accept race realism as factual".
So, this thread was about critical understandings of race realism. By no means is it an exhaustive defense of every facet of race realism, and nor was it ever intended to be. Clearly, I made a short thread OP designed to clear some misconceptions about race realism. Again, you've decided to derail the thread by moving the goalposts.

Ultimately, I do want people to accept race realism as factual because I'm virtually certain it is, but again, this thread is not an exhaustive defense of race realism, and you criticizing the OP for not being exhaustive isn't an actual criticism of the OP/thread's intention.

cognizable factual claim
I've claimed multiple things in the OP that are cognizable. If you want to disagree with that, then address the claims rather than flatly asserting (without argumentation or evidence) that I haven't made "cognizable factual claim[s]".
dfss9788
dfss9788's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 152
1
2
2
dfss9788's avatar
dfss9788
1
2
2
-->
@Mesmer
I've claimed multiple things in the OP that are cognizable.
Not really, largely because "race realism" is an amorphous thing that isn't clearly defined. What do you mean, specifically? The claim isn't cognizable without specifics. I reiterate that you've made no case to support it nor have you presented any evidence. You need evidence.
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,061
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Mesmer
I’ve never seen a convincing argument against race realism, because there isn’t one. I would like someone who denies any significant differences between human populations to explain, for example, why 79 of the last 80 100 meter dash finalists at the last ten Olympics were of African ancestry 
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,061
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@dfss9788
 Even if it is true, the policy implications are negligible and the factual inquiry is therefore moot.
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. 
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@Mesmer
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.  
  4. Anti-racism, as that term is understood among the lot of woke-type fools, is stupid, sure.  But this is hardly groundbreaking.  
These are facts.  


Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@coal
That sounds like a bunch of bullshit.  
Calm down, big boy.

  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. 
I'm surprised there are still people who believe human races aren't real or created "equally".

Ryan Faulk made a truly excellent piece arguing the validity of human races: The Existence of Race – The Alternative Hypothesis . If you don't agree with anything he wrote, I'd be happy to discuss it here.

If that's too complicated for you, here are different human skulls from varying races (differences noted, too): main-qimg-6f0736c16e8265de9f98f40e7ef7e76a (602×610) (quoracdn.net) . I honestly don't know how you could defend these different skull shapes with a purely cultural explanation.

We're also able to observe albinism in differing races and easily determine their race, based on their phenotypic traits: main-qimg-54acc098bd279b12f95dd678b2395091 (602×566) (quoracdn.net) . Again, explaining phenotypic traits through "culture" is something I've never seen.

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. 
See 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.
I'm more clarifying the race realist position, rather than making the position itself. It's like saying mathematicians believe that 2+2=4, as opposed to arguing why 2+2=4. You're welcome to disagree and note that I haven't provided argumentation for the position, but that was never the intention of the OP.

I can agree that race-mixing can happen, it's just not something that usually happens. But I'd need evidence and arguments to make that claim, something that will take several hours, so I might make a thread later on that topic and post the link here.

Anti-racism, as that term is understood among the lot of woke-type fools, is stupid, sure.  But this is hardly groundbreaking.  
Yeah well I thought the fact that human races exists was hardly groundbreaking, but that appeared a bridge too far for you.
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@dfss9788
Not really, largely because "race realism" is an amorphous thing that isn't clearly defined. What do you mean, specifically?
It's really not -- it's literally within the term itself. Race realism is about showing that human races are real. That's it. You can argue things from that (such as policy), but race realism in itself isn't anything more than that.

Again, believing that human races exist doesn't necessarily mean that you believe 'black people bad', as you implied here Race Realism: Critical understandings (debateart.com) . You CAN argue further and say mean things about black people, BUT it's entirely possible to be a race realist WITHOUT doing that.

I reiterate that you've made no case to support it nor have you presented any evidence. You need evidence.
Again, the thread/OP is about critical understandings of race realism. This is not a thread/OP proving any of the claims, I'm merely stating what those claims are. Hence, again, stating that 'you have no evidence' isn't a criticism of the OP/thread because that's not what it is claiming.

For example, I can say that mathematicians believe that 2+2=4, without having to prove that 2+2=4. 

Again, if you want to argue that the critical understandings of race realism are wrong, which is a perfectly fine argument to make, go make your own thread, because this thread/OP is not about that.

Leave the goalposts alone.
dfss9788
dfss9788's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 152
1
2
2
dfss9788's avatar
dfss9788
1
2
2
-->
@thett3
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.

There are some instances where decisions must be made quickly and more compelling interests (e.g. personal safety) are at stake than fairness where I consider that people should be free, at least for the moment, to exercise racial discrimination. These circumstances are narrow. For example, taxi cab drivers frequently discriminate against picking up young black men for fear of being robbed. The fear of robbery is legitimate, and there is a strong positive correlation with young black men and robbery, at least according to the FBI's data. The nature of cab driving, with a dozen+ customers a day, is that it would be unduly burdensome for a driver to conduct an inquiry in to every person who is going to get in the car. The driver must size up people quickly based on what limited information he has. This is unlike the situation with an employer where there is every opportunity to inquire in to prospective hires.

There are other examples of unfair discrimination that, for lack of political influence, large groups of people are rampantly discriminated against. The ugly and the short are probably the best examples. They are passed over for jobs quite often due to their stature or looks. I would prefer some generalized policy furthering fairness than I would the American system of protected classes.

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. That is equal opportunity, not equal results. Hence the results which you mention - racial disparities - are immaterial to the inquiry and are not conclusive evidence of any racism going on. 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.
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,051
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Mesmer
Perceivable differences are.

And therefore have an internal cause.

This is realism


Whereas "race" is a linguistics issue, relative to perceivable differences and eggs and spoons.


What about Species Realism?
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,061
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@dfss9788
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.
It seems that you don't actually think race realism is false, but that you believe it's true and are afraid of where the implications might lead. You wish it wasn't true. I also wish it wasn't true, but the facts seem overwhelming to me that there are differences in group abilities. Unless you have an alternative explanation for why West Africans are so incredibly good at sprinting. Why tiny Jamaica does better at this sport than China. I see no reason to assume that adaptation spared the brain. 

"Inferiority" is your descriptor, not mine. My best friend is smarter than I am, by any reasonable metric. But I don't feel "inferior" to him. On that specific facet, I guess. But I'm defined as a person by so much more than just intelligence. Kindness, wisdom, courage, honesty etc. are all virtues besides simply raw intelligence. 

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.
On the contrary, it is the status quo that makes discrimination economically rational. There are those studies about how resumes with "black sounding" names get less call backs than "white sounding names." I've long thought this had more to do with class than race (and there is good evidence to suggest that) but someone pointed out to me the other day that this discrimination actually makes sense in light of affirmative action policies. The odds are that a black guy and an asian guy with Harvard on their resume are not the same. The asian man almost certainly had to work significantly harder to get where he is, and possesses more intelligence and skill. While black people get a 230 point bonus to their SAT scores (more than a standard deviation!) asian people are penalized: https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-adv-asian-race-tutoring-20150222-story.html

In a world where the elites accept race realism and understand that elite universities can be expected to have an overrepresentation of asian people and an underrpresentation of black people, everyone would also know that the black people who made it there got there through merit. This doesn't stop at elite universities btw but continues down the university chain and well into career paths. 

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.
Let's talk about what's unfair. As a white person, I think it's unfair that my group is constantly blamed for holding black people down. If there is a disparity between white and black people on any metric, it's our fault for being racist and implementing racist policies. I think it's unfair that if you search "white people" or "white men" on any social media website all you get is a slew of racism. 

Yet deep down, almost everyone knows that some degree of racial realism is true. The cognitive dissonance is quite literally tearing this country apart. I don't think public figures talking about race realism is ever going to be a good idea, it's the type of knowledge that does have the potential to be truly toxic. But for God's sake, shut up about race and stop attributing all differences to racism.

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.
This is the inevitable consequence of living in a multi cultural/multi racial society. Empirically everyone (except for mentally ill white white liberals) has an in-group preference. At some point you have to play the cards you're dealt and acknowledge human nature for what it is. I don't understand what's so hard about that. There are always going to be stereotypes, true and false, positive and negative, and it is completely impossible to divorce yourself from this, but it’s important to treat everyone in your life as individual human beings. 

I am notoriously stupid about celebrities so maybe there is some context I'm missing but I don't see the problem with Will Smith? He seems clean cut, handsome, intelligent, etc. 
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@Mesmer
Key points regarding your response:

1. Do not address me as "big boy."

2. Your nonsense about race is unpersuasive.  For example, you linked a blog that is non-responsive to what I wrote written by an individual who lacks familiarity with the subject matters on which he opines.  To illustrate this point: I reviewed some of his other writings.  He clearly does not understand such basic concepts as psychometric testing, and yet purports to use data he doesn't understand to argue a point that is over his head.  You further tried to make a point about skull shape.  That point was incoherent, and non-responsive to what I wrote.  Google the term "phrenology," and consider whether arguing with me over skull shapes is an efficacious use of your time. 

3.  Your comment that "If that's too complicated for you" will surely result in me not taking you or anything else you have to say seriously.  That is particularly where, as here, you have been taken for a ride by a series of ideas that are devoid of any kind of scientific or other evidentiary basis.  It's not even clear you can correctly repeat what, for example, Murray wrote on race and IQ; much less understand how Murray's methods were wrong, why or on what grounds.  

To wit, exactly nothing you have put forward can be taken seriously.