Race Realism is not an attack on dignity

Author: TheMorningsStar

Posts

Total: 84
#61
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@thett3
No that is much more to do with environment than genes. All Asians tend to raise children harsher on education, less about enjoying their childhood. That is cultural and environmental, they tend to have low EQ and high IQ when compared with their average caucasian counterpart but again this depends specifically which Asian culture/ethnicity we are doing it on. 

You say 'East Asian', Japanese, especially those that have immigrated to the West, are often the more liberal end of the East Asian spectrum in how they raise their children (in terms of who their children can socialise with) but are very strict on grades and/or sports attainment. Chinese tend to be the strictest all-round while South Koreans tend to be strict in terms of getting a job but less strict in terms of grades compared with the other two mentioned. Vietnamese are stricter in terms of who their kids hang out with and such but less strict in terms of grades. Filipinos are very strict except they tend to be more lenient when it comes to hobbies and artistic ventures of their children (they respect the children going into musical or performance arts and such more than most of the other cultures do, the others tend to want instantaneous success if their children do venture into that and train them harsh from a young age) but Filipinos are strict on behaviour and who their children can socialise with.

All East Asian cultures have extreme focus on the concept of 'discipline' itself but they focus on different elements. The Japanese, as I already said, in this day and age are actually more likely to accept rebelliousness in the child, the reason is not entirely clear. Idk if you want to go into Thailand and such but I promise you it's about environment more than genes when it comes to the different intelligence types of East Asians vs Caucasians. Caucasians are generally raised to be 'people smart', I would even argue that if you are autistic and high functioning, in East Asian cultures, you actually can pass as normal due to how little they focus on EQ and socialising overall (except for the Japanese). If a child is very introverted and odd but studious, the parents tend to think that's a brilliant child in their cultures, while in the Western cultures there's much more pressure to make the child socialise and question why they're not developing EQ at the same rate as other children are.
#62
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@Double_R
Not every truth is relevant, it depends on what we’re trying to accomplish. If the goal is to live in a society that treats everyone equally, recognizing genetic differences among subgroups of the population serves no purpose. 

At no point have I argued or suggested that it shouldn’t be studied. The topic of this thread is about why many people don’t want to discuss it. That’s a question about our political discourse, not science.


Well right here you say that the facts serve no purpose, and it just so happens that suppressing these facts can only benefit your narrative of blaming Whitey for disparities.

There is immense value in knowing that there are genetic differences and to take that into consideration when making policy. Because knowing the cause of disparities is what matters. Is it inherent limitations in people causing disparities or is it the fault of other people ("discrimination")? Do you not agree that those two different causes call for vastly different policy responses?
#63
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@thett3
I can give you a policy example right now. If the reason that black students are underrepresented in students with high grades and high test scores, and Asian students are over represented, is not because of oppression affirmative action is not necessary.
So in other words, if it turns out that black people are genetically stupider than other races, we can just ignore America’s history of oppression and proceed as if the playing field was always level.

You’ve made my point.

But some inequality almost certainly is caused by Mother Nature. I don’t see why I should accept blaming everything on “our” history without considering all of the facts.
Well first of all, as you acknowledged, we don’t have all the facts. If and when the science can definitively say whether gaps in intelligence between races is a real thing and severe enough to explain the disparities we see, then we can have this conversation.

Second, it’s not about blaming everything on our history. It’s about recognizing the fact that what happens today impacts tomorrow, so you can’t pretend that centuries of oppression wouldn’t have a lasting impact especially in a society that has done really nothing to make up for it.

We don’t know if genetics plays any significant role, but we do know that history does. So if someone is not willing to acknowledge the latter then I have no interest in hearing their views on the former. That’s really it.
#64
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@bmdrocks21
Well right here you say that the facts serve no purpose
I specifically stated that it depends on what you’re trying to accomplish.

X is not relevant to Y  =/=  X has no purpose

Is it inherent limitations in people causing disparities or is it the fault of other people ("discrimination")?
It’s not an either/or. Even if the former is true, that doesn’t negate the latter.

Do you not agree that those two different causes call for vastly different policy responses?
No. Disparities in outcome is not the thing that proves oppression. We know the black community was oppressed because we record our history and we saw the disparities form as an immediate result. Sure one can argue that genetic cognitive differences (if they were in fact real and significant) played a large role in keeping them there but that has nothing to do with how they got there in the first place.
#65
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Double_R
So in other words, if it turns out that black people are genetically stupider than other races, we can just ignore America’s history of oppression and proceed as if the playing field was always level.

You’ve made my point.
Actually the point being made here is mine. If it turns out that disparities between races are due to oppression then drastic action is necessary. If it turns out those disparities exist simply as a fact of nature, than no action is needed. I truly don't understand how you could think it's unimportant to know. It isn't even that hard to find out, all it would take would be a few longitudinal studies comparing the outcomes of people of various races with identical IQ's to determine if discrimination exists. The Bell Curve analyzed the data on this and found that once you adjust for IQ, the disparities between blacks and whites went away (that is, a 100 IQ black and a 100 IQ white had similar outcomes, as did an 85 IQ white and 85 IQ black, or 110 IQ, etc.) but that was in 1994, so I would be very pleased if a similar analysis was performed today. If the outcomes were still similar, it would be strong evidence that oppression is not a significant force impacting life outcomes so we would have to try to figure out what is causing the current IQ gap.

I would put a huge amount of money betting that the average 110 IQ black person does *significantly* better than a 110 IQ white person these days btw. The black person would be able to secure an ivy league education if they wanted it. What do you think?

Well first of all, as you acknowledged, we don’t have all the facts. If and when the science can definitively say whether gaps in intelligence between races is a real thing and severe enough to explain the disparities we see, then we can have this conversation.

Second, it’s not about blaming everything on our history. It’s about recognizing the fact that what happens today impacts tomorrow, so you can’t pretend that centuries of oppression wouldn’t have a lasting impact especially in a society that has done really nothing to make up for it.

We don’t know if genetics plays any significant role, but we do know that history does. So if someone is not willing to acknowledge the latter then I have no interest in hearing their views on the former. That’s really it.
We don't have all the facts, but I'm the one who wants to seek them out whereas you have argued that the knowledge would be pointless. I really do think this is quite revealing. The gap in intelligence between the races in America is a well documented fact, the question is puzzling out the cause. You should be welcoming research into this subject to own the racists.

Also it isn't obvious to me that jim crow laws should be considered that relevant considering that it was generations ago at this point and the ensuing half century of affirmative action, gigantic wealth transfers, and overwhelmingly positive media representation.  That's a proposition that needs defending just as rigorous as race realism does. The most successful group in the world, pound for pound, was being thrown into ovens about 15 years before Jim Crow ended. 
#66
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@RationalMadman
That could explain the grades, but standardized tests are basically IQ tests and there is very little evidence that you can raise your score on an IQ test through studying. I've heard that recent changes have made the SAT less of an IQ test and easier to study for, which could explain why Asians have pulled away even further in test scores over the past decade, but they have been doing better ever since we have had an Asian-American community sizable enough to sample. I would put money on it being genetic
#67
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@thett3
You can, severely so, based on how hard you focused on brain-stimulating activity in childhood and adolescence as well as even young adulthood.

By around 26-27 a male finalises their IQ whereas at around 22-23 a female has generally finalised hers (brains develop slower than the bodies imply puberty ends, there's actually a neurological argument for a higher age of consent for males than females but that will of course be too controversial to ever be enacted and as a male myself I'd fight it).
#68
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@thett3
East Asians have upbringings that heavily favour calculation-type intelligence over creative or social intelligence. There is a reason why even as powerful as China is, it's still a 'quiet guy in the corner' of the world on a social level, it easily could be competing with the US if it wanted to, it's about the culture not valuing EQ that much at all.

East Asian cultures value emotional matters less than Western modernised cultures do and it has its drawbacks, especially on suicide rate and actually I'd argue it has no net-benefit at all because while there's much more pressure to be high-achieving, those wired for a more ordinary lifestyle than a high-flying doctor or engineer or lawyer or whatever end up trampled by the society, brutally so. It's unforgiving to those that suffer in any way, especially the Chinese culture in particular. They don't believe empathy is an important trait at all, this is because in Confucianism duty and loyalty to your family comes before anything emotional on the moral spectrum and that is a significant philosophy that has influence China's culture today.
#69
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
China cares about family over diversity for the backbone of a Nation.
#70
dfss9788
dfss9788's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 152
1
2
2
dfss9788's avatar
dfss9788
1
2
2
-->
@TheMorningsStar
critics of Race Realism frame the idea as inherently attacking the dignity of people based on race
I'm a critic of the idea but I don't view it that way. Race realism, and its liberal counterpart critical race theory, are both part of the political blame game going on between the racial identities. Who is to blame for the observed racial disparities? Pick white people and call it systemic racism. Pick black people and call it race realism or, as people seem to say, it's about taking responsibility. A superior position is that collective racial responsibility is a farce. Nobody is responsible for the conduct of another simply because he is the same race. When people accept that viscerally, not just intellectually, then there can be healing.
#71
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@Double_R
I specifically stated that it depends on what you’re trying to accomplish.

X is not relevant to Y  =/=  X has no purpose
Well supposedly you want everyone to be treated equally. Yet, your rationale is this "has no purpose" because you don't want others using that information to stop giving preferential treatment to certain groups at the expense of others.

It’s not an either/or. Even if the former is true, that doesn’t negate the latter.

No, it isn't necessarily an either/or. But blaming it all on racism is equally as absurd as blaming it all 100% on genetics.

No. Disparities in outcome is not the thing that proves oppression. We know the black community was oppressed because we record our history and we saw the disparities form as an immediate result. Sure one can argue that genetic cognitive differences (if they were in fact real and significant) played a large role in keeping them there but that has nothing to do with how they got there in the first place.

My position definitely isn't that disparities prove oppression lol. Biological differences that form over thousands of years aren't a result of oppression in America. I was saying that seeing how much of the difference in outcomes is based on personal choice/genetics will give more insight into how much was caused by "oppression" over half a century ago.

Based on your argument here, since not all groups will EVER achieve the same outcomes (it would be silly to argue otherwise), and you blame White people for "how they got there in the first place" is your position to provide preferential treatment to blacks until the end of time? Because that is what happens when your thought is brought to its logical conclusion.

To sum it up:
You're blaming something that happened in the past for something that will persist forever and then using that thing that will persist forever to justify preferential treatment to end that gap. 
#72
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@thett3
If it turns out that disparities between races are due to oppression then drastic action is necessary. If it turns out those disparities exist simply as a fact of nature, than no action is needed.
It’s not an either/or proposition.

I don’t understand why you don’t understand that you continue to make my point. The very fact that you are framing this as of it’s one or the other demonstrates the very problem I am pointing to. The implication is that if we determine that, say blacks are genetically inferior to whites, then the result of this finding is that we can now chuck away all of our history as well as everything black people are pointing to with regards to racism and how it impacts them in order to  just proclaim that blacks are where they are because of their own inferiority and walk away. That implication is not just wrong, it’s grotesque.

You can’t throw someone into a hole and then blame them for being there when they are unable to get out. So even if it were the case that black people were just not smart enough to lift their community from the depths they were plunged into, that doesn’t change the fact that it was not because of their faults that they ended up there in the first place. That fact matters regardless of what genetic differences we could possibly discover. So if someone is unwilling to at the very least acknowledge it, that tells me all I need to know with regards to whether this person is interested in an honest dialog.

We don't have all the facts, but I'm the one who wants to seek them out whereas you have argued that the knowledge would be pointless. I really do think this is quite revealing.
I never said the knowledge would be pointless, I said the knowledge would be irrelevant to what public policy should be because I find the notion of public policy adjusting for the collective intelligence of a race to be absurd.
#73
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,551
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
Why do some societies/people groups advance more rapidly and generate more wealth than others?

This, from a doc (and a book, I believe) titled “Guns, Germs, and Steel”:




tldr:  the common denominators of wealth and advancement in human history appear to be the presence of domesticatable animals and farmable land.

But this background knowledge wouldn’t inform present day policy at all…

#74
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@bmdrocks21
Well supposedly you want everyone to be treated equally. Yet, your rationale is this "has no purpose" because you don't want others using that information to stop giving preferentialtreatment to certain groups at the expense of others.
If you don’t understand someone else’s rationale it’s better to ask questions than proclaim nonsense.

I do believe everyone should be treated equally, that’s why I am against preferential treatment for anyone.

Treating everyone equally begins with ensuring that everyone is given an equal opportunity to succeed. Please enlighten me as to how this is the case right now for the average black child vs the average white child in America.

Assessing the collective intelligence of races serves no real purpose other than to explain away disparities in wealth by attributing it to “they’re just stupid” rather than taking a deep look at any other underlying issues that may also be factoring into it.

It never ceases to amaze me how the same crowd that always talks about how we are all individuals suddenly has a penchant for categorizing everyone into an intelligence camp.

No, it isn't necessarily an either/or. But blaming it all on racism is equally as absurd as blaming it all 100% on genetics.
I’ve never argued that it’s 100% all on racism, so what’s your point?

You're blaming something that happened in the past for something that will persist forever and then…
You can stop there because you already got it wrong.

Whether our current state of wealth inequality is a result of our history/policies is an actual conversation, with actual facts that can actually be verified and linked backward to establish whether there is causation that continues into today’s society. Some arguments that there are may be valid, some may not be, but we don’t know until we actually have that conversation. Race realism has nothing to do with that.

I remind you that this thread is specifically about why many on the left view race realism in the light we do and folks like yourself here continue to prove that point; because you refuse to recognize that even if there are in fact significant genetic differences playing into why we are still here, that doesn’t negate any moral obligation we have as a society to right whatever wrongs persist. Race realism isn’t an attempt to have a real conversation, it’s an attempt to skip over one.
#75
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Double_R
I don’t understand why you don’t understand that you continue to make my point. The very fact that you are framing this as of it’s one or the other demonstrates the very problem I am pointing to. The implication is that if we determine that, say blacks are genetically inferior to whites, then the result of this finding is that we can now chuck away all of our history as well as everything black people are pointing to with regards to racism and how it impacts them in order to  just proclaim that blacks are where they are because of their own inferiority and walk away. That implication is not just wrong, it’s grotesque.
There’s no implication. You’re just assuming that past discrimination has a substantial impact without attempting to quantify what that is, explaining how we can do this,

I on the other hand have given a coherent framework. If the median black person with a given IQ performs similarly to a median white person with a given IQ, or a median Hispanic person with a given IQ, than the argument that there is large discrimination today is not tenable. 

If you believe that the entirety of the IQ gap, which is simply a fact, is due not to nature but due to past discrimination (in reality it’s likely a mix of nature, history, and environment) you need to defend that claim as well as provide a framework for how we figure out when the problem is solved. I don’t understand why you’d expect me to accept preferential treatment for one group in perpetuity. If there is any difference due to nature, even if it’s small, equality will never be reached. If policymakers and scientists aren’t allowed to know/study this than we will never know at what point further intervention is no longer necessary but becomes unjust 

I never said the knowledge would be pointless, I said the knowledge would be irrelevant to what public policy should be because I find the notion of public policy adjusting for the collective intelligence of a race to be absurd.
Well the public policy implications would just be a lack of policy, not having interventions like affirmative action or special treatment for minority businesses 
#76
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,594
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@thett3

I think I see what you are saying.  A very stupid white can be President of the USA , but only a very smart black can be one.
#77
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@FLRW
That’s exactly what I’m saying, thanks for the useful comment 
#78
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@Double_R
I’ve never argued that it’s 100% all on racism, so what’s your point?
You have never mentioned any other factor and have simply pointed to disparities. Then you said we have to do something because something bad happened in the past. So, yes, you were implicitly stating that racism is the culprit since you added zero nuance.

If you don’t understand someone else’s rationale it’s better to ask questions than proclaim nonsense.

I do believe everyone should be treated equally, that’s why I am against preferential treatment for anyone.

Treating everyone equally begins with ensuring that everyone is given an equal opportunity to succeed. Please enlighten me as to how this is the case right now for the average black child vs the average white child in America.

Assessing the collective intelligence of races serves no real purpose other than to explain away disparities in wealth by attributing it to “they’re just stupid” rather than taking a deep look at any other underlying issues that may also be factoring into it.

It never ceases to amaze me how the same crowd that always talks about how we are all individuals suddenly has a penchant for categorizing everyone into an intelligence camp.
Really, the whole "equal opportunity" argument is a sham. Nobody will have equal opportunities no matter what. How your parents raise you, your religion, your genetics (even if you don't think they are different on a group-by-group basis, the scientific consensus is still that intelligence is 40-60% heritable). If a group on average behaves much differently than another, they never will have equal opportunity because they will make themselves less capable of taking advantage of those opportunities. And the laws and policies governing the country have already gone beyond "equal" to actively discriminating in favor of minorities, especially blacks.

And considering that blacks can have sub-par MCAT and GPA scores and have a significantly higher chance of getting into medical school (same applies to college in general with SAT scores), they are given subsidies for their businesses, etc.

Heck, they even have a whole agency for everyone except Whites' small businesses. I'd like some of that "equal opportunity", myself.
"The U.S. Department of Commerce operates the Minority Business Development Agency, which is dedicated to the growth and global competitiveness of business enterprises owned and operated by African Americans, Asian Americans, Hasidic Jews, Hispanic Americans, Native Americans, and Pacific Islanders."

The thing is, I understand your rationale completely. You just aren't willing to say what you think. You're trying to hide it behind shallow phrases like "equal opportunity" and blaming segregation without acknowledging the other, much more relevant factors.

Whether our current state of wealth inequality is a result of our history/policies is an actual conversation, with actual facts that can actually be verified and linked backward to establish whether there is causation that continues into today’s society. Some arguments that there are may be valid, some may not be, but we don’t know until we actually have that conversation. Race realism has nothing to do with that.

I remind you that this thread is specifically about why many on the left view race realism in the light we do and folks like yourself here continue to prove that point; because you refuse to recognize that even if there are in fact significant genetic differences playing into why we are still here, that doesn’t negate any moral obligation we have as a society to right whatever wrongs persist. Race realism isn’t an attempt to have a real conversation, it’s an attempt to skip over one.
You're only half right. Learning how historic policies affect today is a valid question. But then that's where you stop, because you only care about that and don't want to come to the uncomfortable realization that "huh, maybe it isn't all White people's fault". If you find out that *gasp* single motherhood (a choice) has bad outcomes on children, crazily enough, those groups will perform much worse on average. We care about having a holistic look at the causes of disparities, while you myopically only care about slavery and segregation.

You accuse me of not wanting a conversation, but it is blatantly obvious that this is mere projection. You only ever mention racist policies from over half a century ago. Race realists also consider genetics and group differences in lifestyle choices. Considering that you gloss over those and think that they aren't "relevant", you prove that you are only willing to blame White people for the failings of other groups.

So again, I iterate, you claim to want to rectify differences in outcomes that will never close as long as we live in a world in which personal choices impact your life outcomes. Considering that will never happen, you simply want perpetual special treatment (a continuation of the policies already present).

So what's the stopping point with preferential treatment? Because equal opportunity and preferential opportunities have done very little to achieve equal outcomes.
#79
drlebronski
drlebronski's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 993
3
5
9
drlebronski's avatar
drlebronski
3
5
9
-->
@bmdrocks21
 If you find out that *gasp* single motherhood (a choice) has bad outcomes on children, crazily enough, those groups will perform much worse on average
single motherhood isn't a fucking choice but okay.

Why do you presume that single motherhood rates are so high in black areas?........I mean its not like 1/5 black children have had a father in jail??

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm whyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
#80
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@drlebronski
Murdering, raping, and assaulting people is also a choice. Hate to break it to you.

But if it is 1/5, yet the numbers are what? 76% among blacks? That means the vast majority of them are still because they don’t marry before having children
#81
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@bmdrocks21
I’ve never argued that it’s 100% all on racism, so what’s your point?
You have never mentioned any other factor and have simply pointed to disparities. Then you said we have to do something because something bad happened in the past. So, yes, you were implicitly stating that racism is the culprit since you added zero nuance.
That doesn’t follow.

Invoking racism as a factor =/= racism is 100% the cause.

Really, the whole "equal opportunity" argument is a sham. Nobody will have equal opportunities no matter what. How your parents raise you, your religion, your genetics (even if you don't think they are different on a group-by-group basis, the scientific consensus is still that intelligence is 40-60% heritable). If a group on average behaves much differently than another, they never will have equal opportunity because they will make themselves less capable of taking advantage of those opportunities.
Do you believe every individual deserves to be treated in accordance with what their group does?

Learning how historic policies affect today is a valid question. But then that's where you stop,
I stop there when I find myself talking to someone who won’t acknowledge it. It’s like talking to someone who won’t acknowledge that 2+2=4 but then wants to talk about multiplication. No point in going any further.

You accuse me of not wanting a conversation
I’ve made no statement regarding what you do or do not want. This is a broad conversation about self professed race realists, and to the extent I’ve commented on you at all it was specifically in regards to your comments here in this thread.

The thing is, I understand your rationale completely. You just aren't willing to say what you think. You're trying to hide it…
 
…because you only care about that and don't want to come to the uncomfortable realization that "huh, maybe it isn't all White people's fault"….
 
So again, I iterate, you claim to want to rectify differences in outcomes that will never close as long as we live in a world in which personal choices impact your life outcomes. Considering that will never happen, you simply want perpetual special treatment…
Telling me what I actually believe and what my motivations are is not an argument.

10 days later

#82
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@Double_R
Do you believe every individual deserves to be treated in accordance with what their group does?

We are speaking in generalized terms. You speak of oppression on a general scale. You use general worse life outcomes to justify special treatment. I fail to follow how me merely mentioning how average group behavior affecting outcomes has anything to do with treating individuals different.

But if you happen to support reparations or affirmative action or other forms of preferential treatment, you plan on treating White people according to what their group did (no slaver is still alive here, and most segregationists are dead) and using that as justification for discriminating against them today.

I stop there when I find myself talking to someone who won’t acknowledge it. It’s like talking to someone who won’t acknowledge that 2+2=4 but then wants to talk about multiplication. No point in going any further.

Who won't acknowledge it??? I have said multiple times that there are likely spillovers from segregation. Even the message that you responded to with this comment said "learning how historic policies affect today is a valid question".
It's like I'm talking to a brick wall. Anything less than 100% victimization mindset and blaming White people is an attack on dignity to you, apparently.

Telling me what I actually believe and what my motivations are is not an argument.
Yeah, and a lack of a substantive response to anything I say is also not an argument. Curious!
#83
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@bmdrocks21
You use general worse life outcomes to justify special treatment.
No, I don’t. You don’t pay attention to the arguments I am making.

Whenever I speak of worse life outcomes I tie them directly to their root causes. Outcomes is not an argument for oppression, it’s evidence that the oppression we all know occurred was effective.

I fail to follow how me merely mentioning how average group behavior affecting outcomes has anything to do with treating individuals different.
So do I

But if you happen to support reparations or affirmative action or other forms of preferential treatment,
I don’t

Who won't acknowledge it??? I have said multiple times that there are likely spillovers from segregation.
It was a generalization. If you haven’t noticed, this thread is about why some on the left view race realism as a bad faith discussion. I’m explaining why. This isn’t about you.

Yeah, and a lack of a substantive response to anything I say is also not an argument. Curious!
You’re not sticking to the topic. This is what I notice a lot of you on this site do. You fight so hard to have the conversation you want rather than the one you are actually engaged in, then it’s as if you don’t even recognize I haven’t followed you down the rabbit hole, so you walk away completely misunderstanding everything I’ve said because you took everything as if it were being made in the context of your imaginary conversation.
#84
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@TheMorningsStar
As such, using statistics of 'outcomes' to determine policy (when attempting to make a fair equality of opportunity) is flawed if you do not account for the nature elements.
As you are suggesting a philosophy specifically for the purpose of policy determination, can you provide an example of a race-realism motivated policy that you may recommend?