-->
@oromagi
when you consider that all the false narratives and slurs levelled against whites CANNOT be talked about whites because they would be "racist" to do so.false. You seem to talk of nothing else.
I've already addressed above where the latter part of my sentence is correct.
The false narratives that are anti-white are all as follows, wherein anti race-realists deny human races/significance of human races. Let's walk you through the false narratives:
That human races don't exist (wrong. Dead wrong: The Existence of Race – The Alternative Hypothesis ).
That there is more genetic variation within races and between, therefore human races don't exist (wrong, but it's true for total genetic markers, but wrong for the total variance generated by markers which creates racial differences: Variation Within and Between Races – The Alternative Hypothesis )
That race is a "social construct", therefore human races are arbitrary (wrong, although human races are "social constructs" in the technical sense: https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/race-is-a-social-construct/ ).
That racial equality is possible (wrong. Dead wrong: The Impossibility of Equality – The Alternative Hypothesis )
That IQ is not valid (wrong. Dead wrong: https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/the-validity-of-iq/ )
That cultural bias skews the results of IQ tests (wrong. This doesn't happen for g loaded ones, which is where the data is derived: https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/cultural-bias-on-iq-tests/ )
That IQ doesn't test for all kinds of intelligence (wrong. It tests for all g loaded types: https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/multiple-intelligences-emotional-intelligence-creativity-and-g/ )
That low SES/poverty causes differences in racial outcomes, that biology has nothing to do with it (wrong: IQ and Socio-Economic Status – The Alternative Hypothesis https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/race-iq-and-poverty/ )
That lead poisoning is the only reason there is a white-black IQ/outcome gap (wrong: https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/12/23/race-iq-and-lead/ ).
That the black-white IQ gap is closing, therefore it's not genetic (wrong: https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/09/10/the-flynn-effect-race-and-iq/ )
That the Black arrest rate in the US is due purely to "systemic racism" or "racial bias in policing", rather than biological differences (wrong: Race and Crime: the Causes of Black Crime Rates – The Alternative Hypothesis )
That racial diversity is a source of strength (wrong: Ethnic Diversity: Strength or Weakness? – The Alternative Hypothesis )
That American slavery and Native American genocide narratives taught in US schools is accurate (wrong: History – The Alternative Hypothesis ).
That white privilege exists (wrong: White Privilege – The Alternative Hypothesis ).
false. I did not label anybody anything. I cited SPLC's warning that Gottfredson's funding, research, and outcomes were White Supremacist in origin, among the many reasons given was that Gottfredson concludes that the average black person is naturally mentally retarded and that the only thing that accounts for higher IQs in African-Americans is from white genes. Seems pretty literally "white supremacist" to me.
You labelled the Pioneer fund, and thus everyone involved in it, as white supremacist (among other things).
If you're not interested in having a discussion about the facts, but are instead going to slander and appeal to authority every chance you get, go waste someone else's time.
Nobody is pretending that Gottfredson's IQ research is impartial. She is paid by the Pioneer Fund for the same specific outcomes shared by all research done at the Pioneer Fund's requests: that white people are superior to black people.
You called them "white supremacist" yet their findings often have Asians and Jews as superior, in regards to IQ research. Your argument is slanderous and nonsensical.
- White supremacists claim overall superiority, not superiority in every trait. White supremacists cede physical superiority to blacks but claim superiority in intelligence and work ethic. Likewise, white supremacists cede intelligence and work ethic to Asians but claim physical superiority and individuality as traits that make Whites superior.
You haven't proven they're "white supremacist".
- Why aren't Jews being studied as White people? Doesn't a primarily religious separation suggest that categories are really much more socially constructed than researchers acknowledge?
Because Jews and White people aren't the same race lol. They're more similar than other races for sure, but not the same.
- I implied nothing. I rebutted nothing. I argued nothing. I documented the SPLC's warning regarding Gottfredson's research and financing, which you failed to do.
You called them white supremacist by quoting the SPLC and appealing to their authority.
- I twice argued that your data was "exposed to skepticism" because of the established political agenda attached to funding which you characterize as
I conceded nothing; I noted.
Yes, you applied Wikipedia's FALSE definition correctly. No, that does not make the definition correct.
- you're essentially arguing that because their conflict of interest *might* have caused the research to be biased, it *has* to be biased
- I argue "exposed to skepticism" which you interpret as "*has* to be biased" (your emphasis)
- Wikipedia and I are clear about the nature of ad hom, the silliness arises from your lack of comprehension.
- Mulinos, et al published a series of studies in the 30's showing that the addition of diethylene-glycol made cigarette smoke less irritating to the eyes and throat,
- It is a valid ad hom to point out that Phillip Morris paid for those studies and then used that data to promote Lucky Strikes as the least irritating cigarette.
- The data, in isolation, is accurate enough but it is totally legit to point out that the data was purpose built and totally disinterested in the larger question of whether or not Lucky Strikes were toxic.
- Likewise, it a valid ad hom to point out the Pioneer Fund provides the financing behind all of the science you cite and that
- that fund was founded with an explicitly racist purpose:
- "race betterment" by promoting the genetic stock of those "deemed to be descended predominantly from white persons who settled in the original thirteen states prior to the adoption of the Constitution."
- I don't argue that therefore the data must be inaccurate,
- In fact, I believe several follow-ups have backed The Bell Curve's stats
- I do question the value of g in assessing intelligence (which we've agreed is incomplete)
- I do question the value of assessing g according to skin color and religion.
- I would question any public policy recommendation based on such assessments.
Again, yes, it's reasonable to assume that a study if more likely to be biased if it has a conflict of interest. No, that does not DISPROVE a study in itself. This is why Wikipedia is wrong with its interpretation of Ad Hominem: it's perfectly possible for a study to have reasons to be bias yet be accurately compiled.
Again, if a study was incorrectly formed based on this bias, you need to demonstrate where that occurred. Again, a study isn't invalided if there is a CHANCE that it is more LIKELY to be bias.
To be blunt: ad hominem is never valid and Wikipedia is wrong about it being "sometimes" valid. Again, the validity of the study isn't determined by whether there could be bias or not. You need to demonstrate that the study is wrong on something, otherwise, arguing that the study is wrong because of bias is Ad Hominem (a logical fallacy).
Instead of being caught up in your stupid slanderous game, this is the question you should be answering: are their studies wrong? You've already answered the question by saying "I don't argue that therefore the data must be inaccurate". Therefore, the bias hasn't yet manifested in inaccurate findings, and therefore hasn't yet mattered.
Also, I never agreed that "g" is "incomplete". I argued that it's difficult to capture it fully through proxy of IQ.
Furthermore, we're not assessing "g" based on "skin color". It's based on human races which are FAR MORE than mere skin color. These are biologically distinct groups down to DNA.
That is my evaluation and we've already agreed on sources here.
- Bell Curvers (incl. Gottfredson) state that average IQ of sub-Saharan Africans is 71 and
- that the 70-75 range is threshold for mental retardation.
- Therefore, the average Black African is disabled, limited in ability to communicate, self-care, self-direct, work, etc.
- Bell Curvers (incl. Gottfredson) state that average IQ of Black Africans is 85 and
- this is not due to environment or education as much as because "Almost all Americans who identify themselves as black have white ancestors" (Gottfredson, Mainstream Science)
- The validity of the data is totally irrelevant to the assertion of racial supremacy here. Bell Curvers (incl. Gottfredson) are unequivocally asserting white superiority if the average, unadulterated black person's natural genetic outcome is defined as limited in their ability to even take care of their own affairs.
So if you don't believe the data is wrong, what is the problem with it? Why do you feel the need to racially slur white people because the data they collected accurately captures the cognitive abilities of these sub-Saharan Africans? Unless you can disprove the data, you're racially slurring scientific fact. Do you understand how damaging you're being? Let's just make it plainly clear what you believe:
(1) The data in the Bell Curve is accurate (at least to a large extent)
(2) The data in the Bell Curve is "white supremacist"
Again, you are attempting to slur genuine scientific enquiry with a nasty label.
No. The crux of my stance is that making up fake "non-literal" interpretations of words is special pleading and so your false claim of injury lacks any credibility. Your hurt feelings arise from your unique interpretation of the term which has no semantic basis in works of reference. If you are going to base arguments on sources that are deemed extreme by this site's standards, by SPLC's standards, by Wikipedia's standards, etc., then you must expect those sources will be sometimes challenged as extreme beliefs unsupported by the scientific consensus.
You've been documented in applying this "non-literal" interpretation yourself -- you're living proof that your argument is wrong. Either you're applying a false definition (wtf), or the definition you're applying is true AND I'M RIGHT in pointing it out as a non-literal definition. You can't appeal to authority saying that the definition doesn't exist, but then apply the definition in your own writing LOL.
