Tuesday assorted links

by on February 23, 2016 at 12:30 pm in Uncategorized | Permalink

1. ““When economic development happens, metal scenes appear. They’re like mushrooms after the rain,” says Roy Doron, an African history professor at Winston-Salem State University.” Link here.

2. New interview with Elena Ferrante.

3. Who are the globally known famous people and what do they do?

4. When will global aging drive interest rates back up again?  Hint: later than you might think.

5. Mesmerizing mass sheep herding (short video, drone, model this).  And mesmerizing mass human herding (photo, recommended).

6. Economic Report of the President (big pdf).

7. Kareem on political correctness, a good piece.

1 Paul February 23, 2016 at 12:44 pm

3. If you asked a sample of U.S. high school seniors why is the project called “Pantheon”, how many would know the answer?

2 derek February 23, 2016 at 3:00 pm

Probably a lot. You still learn about Greek culture in freshman year in most places. Pantheon is also a commonplace word in sporting (such-and-such a player in the pantheon of all-time great athletes), so more guys than girls will get this right.

3 Cliff February 23, 2016 at 10:21 pm

I hate to break it to KAJ but men and women are not, in fact, equal. In fact, one of the two sexes is weaker than the other (and generally less athletic). I leave it to the reader to guess which.

4 Joël February 23, 2016 at 1:01 pm

7. Good piece? Really? What have you smoked, Tyler? Kareem begins by not defining his terms, which in this case is a serious problem, as “political correctness” may mean very different thing. From the rest of the article, we infer that for him it means “the rule of not using disparaging terms against people, like racial or sexist or homophobic slur.”

But then he fails to address the fundamental question of whether this rule must be self-enforced, or enforced by the authority of your government, employer, university, etc.

The part of the paper arguing that PC (whatever that means) has been efficient in reducing racism and sexism is particularly weak, as the authors seems very conscious. Here of course the simple correlation between the diminution of racism and the diminution of racism language is not a presumption of efficiency of PCness, as the causality is much more likely to go the other way.

The true problem with PC, for me, is not that it forbids certain words (such as Nigger, Pussy, Dick (?), Fagot, etc.) but that it forbids the expression and free discussion of certain ideas. For example, the sentence “the contribution of the Arabic world to the history of mathematics has been so far essentially negligible” expresses a truth (in my informed and not humble opinion) but would lead me to serious problem with my tenure if uttered under my real name in my university. Now when we teach history of mathematics that’s a point that needs to be addressed and here the serious problems with PC begins.

5 Nick February 23, 2016 at 1:14 pm

1: “This bad writer didnt define his terms”
2: “I am upset with the influence of the thing I have accused him of not defining. Here is a reason it is bad. No, I will not define it.”

6 Jeff R. February 23, 2016 at 1:44 pm

To me, KAJ is conflating good manners and common decency with what political correctness actually is, which I would define as allowing certain groups to declare entire topics as off-limits for polite discourse and then hurling invective at anyone who violates these unspoken rules, intentionally or unintentionally, often while exhibiting a level of anger and indignation completely disproportionate to what was actually said or done.

As an example, he writes: “for the same reason we no longer use terms that came to seem pejorative (Negro, colored, chick, bitch), we should eschew phrases tinged with hate (fag, cripple, retard) from our vocabulary.” I agree, actually. But how many people who complain about political correctness are really arguing that it should be considered more acceptable to use any of those terms? Hardly anyone. And that’s because they understand those terms are offensive and are not simply arguing for the right to offend people, but rather about who gets decide what is offensive.

Notice, for example, that there is one demographic that still uses words like ‘bitch,’ ‘fag,’ and the N-bomb quite liberally and it sure isn’t white Republicans.

7 Cassiodorus February 23, 2016 at 1:57 pm

Shorter Jeff: “The blacks won’t take me seriously when I’m waiving around a copy of The Bell Curve and telling them they’re no smarter than apes. The PC police are supporting that. Also, what’s so wrong with n****r, rappers use it all the time.”

8 Jeff R. February 23, 2016 at 1:58 pm

Lulz. Nice job at willfully misreading me.

9 JWatts February 23, 2016 at 2:14 pm

I always wonder when reading such comments if the writer really does hold such a bizarre mental model of people he doesn’t like in his head or if it’s just rhetorical theater?

10 JWatts February 23, 2016 at 2:15 pm

That was directed at Cassiodorus straw man post.

11 anon February 23, 2016 at 2:20 pm

Come on guys, we didn’t even have to wait that long. Just a few comments lower we have “asdf” going there, with “The entire PC apparatus is based on a science denying lie perpetuated in order for a minority to gain power and exploit the majority.”

Maybe Jeff did cut off a pure slice of reason with “they won’t let me say words” but that sure as heck connects with “Something has to be causing the black/white gap” below.

At a minimum it takes a tin ear to straddle that line with such self-righteousness.

12 Cassiodorus February 23, 2016 at 2:31 pm

JWatts, I’ve witnessed enough of it in my life to be distracted when people put those arguments in nicer garb. If Jeff wants to make comments that fit right in at Stormfront, he’s certainly within his rights to do, but that doesn’t mean I have to pretend that’s not what he’s doin because he’s too cowardly to do it directly.

13 Cassiodorus February 23, 2016 at 2:34 pm

Previous post should say “to not be distracted,” obviously.

14 other anon February 23, 2016 at 2:44 pm

@ anon
Go ahead and post a response to the other commenter if you feel so inclined. Why do you insist on conflating the opinions of two (presumably) separate people?

@ Cassiodorus
Oh I see…you’re just trolling. Troll on my friend!

15 Cassiodorus February 23, 2016 at 2:46 pm

No, I’m just cutting to the point instead of dancing around it.

16 JWatts February 23, 2016 at 3:01 pm

Cassiodorus, maybe your motive interpretations are correct. But how is anybody to know? I don’t see that Jeff R. was making racist points. He certainly didn’t use inflammatory rhetoric. So effectively what you did was create a strawman argument and not address the points made. That doesn’t advance the argument in your favor, instead it makes Jeff R. look like a rational individual capable of making logical arguments that aren’t easily refuted by his intellectual opponents.

17 A Triggered Ape February 23, 2016 at 3:24 pm

I am offended that Cassiodorus would use “apes” as a model group to stand-in for lack of intelligence and/or imply that apes are somehow inferior to humans—and more than once in this thread!

Everyone who isn’t a speciesist knows that any perceived intelligence gaps between apes (non-human apes, that is, for those that insist on monophyletic terminology) and humans are due to culture, environment, and socioeconomic opportunities, not genetics.

The notion of “intelligence” itself, and being able to measure it, is but a fictitious construct created and wielded by humans to subjugate other species, from the perch of their privilege. Those arrogant shit lords even named themselves “sapiens”—literally calling themselves wise to the exclusion of other species.

Someone please post Cassiodorus’s personal information on Twitter, so the public can be reminded that Hatred and Prejudice still exist. The authorities should also be alerted; such an individual poses a danger to the world.

18 Brian Donohue February 23, 2016 at 3:27 pm

OK, you obviously didn’t read Charles Murray. How about Stephen Pinker’s The Blank Slate? Beyond the pale? Any unhinged epithets you want to vomit up?

19 Cassiodorus February 23, 2016 at 3:40 pm

JWatts, what actual points did he make? He claimed that “certain groups” declare topics off-limits. What topics have been declared off-limits? Note that he never cites to anything, though you do have other commenters later in the thread defending junk science like The Bell Curve.

Jeff stated that “hardly anyone” argues it should be acceptable to use the terms he listed, then turns around in his closing sentence to complain about members of the relevant groups using those terms (and implicitly arguing it should therefore be acceptable for him to use them).

Arguments about “civility” are rarely, if ever, about civil behavior. They’re about policing the tone of people making unpopular points.

20 JWatts February 23, 2016 at 4:11 pm

“JWatts, what actual points did he make?”

Sigh, really. He made points and you know he did. You even attempt to refute them now, but first act as if they don’t actually count as real points. That’s just another disingenuous debate tactic after your first (the strawman argument) was called out.

“He claimed that “certain groups” declare topics off-limits. -” This isn’t a controversial opinion to most people. It would be fair to ask for specific examples, but we’ve all heard plenty of them. Take the UVA rape case I cited earlier. When certain reporters started questioning the veracity of the source, the Left directly attacked the reporters for daring to ask questions. That’s clearly an attempt to make ‘certain groups’, (self-declared rape victims) off limits.

http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/01/is-the-uva-rape-story-a-gigantic-hoax

http://jezebel.com/is-the-uva-rape-story-a-gigantic-hoax-asks-idiot-1665233387

21 Jeff R. February 23, 2016 at 4:17 pm

Jeff stated that “hardly anyone” argues it should be acceptable to use the terms he listed, then turns around in his closing sentence to complain about members of the relevant groups using those terms (and implicitly arguing it should therefore be acceptable for him to use them).

Nope. My point, which you’ve simply failed to grasp, is that if KAJ’s argument–that political correctness is really just treating people with respect–was true, then the people rebelling against it and the targets of the Be Nicer Brigade would clearly not be the white republicans he criticizes. Said white people are by and large NOT the one’s using the offensive terms Kareem named, nor are they clamoring to, and neither am I. Again, you either couldn’t grasp what I was saying or you willfully misread it.

22 Hazel Meade February 23, 2016 at 4:24 pm

JWatts, what actual points did he make? He claimed that “certain groups” declare topics off-limits. What topics have been declared off-limits?

Any objective discussion of the causes of unequal economic outcomes for different races, genders, or ethnic groups.

23 anon February 23, 2016 at 5:40 pm

I think, other anon, that it is part of the growing up process to learn, understand, that “saying X” is very much bound to a history of not just prejudice, but violence and oppression of X. It is halfway down the road.

Complaining that you can’t use the language of genocide etc isn’t really that enlightened after all.

24 Nathan W February 23, 2016 at 6:52 pm

“What topics have been declared off-limits? ”

A white man makes an observation of black on black violence (I attribute this to gang turf wars, and blame the illegality of drugs), and calls upon the black community to step up and speak openly against it. BANNED in some circles!

A white man enters into a conversation relating to feminism, and fails to recite the history of male violence against women before expressing an opinion on issues relating to women. BANNED in some circles!

Ummm… Zionist apologist are pretty good at thus stuff too.

That kind of stuff.

I’m totally pro-PC, 1995 edition. These days, some minority of these folks have waltzed off the deep end and are living in some parallel universe, perhaps even more deluded and misinformed than the people whose stereotypes they purport to challenge.

Those are some specific sorts of examples. Hazel’s generalization appears broadly accurate, for that minority who PCers who have gone off the deep end.

25 anon February 23, 2016 at 2:07 pm

The SJWs are the ones in need of some manners. Attempting to get people fired over expressing differing view points isn’t very well mannered.

Cassiodorus’s misrepresentation of Jeff R.’s words is a good example of the sort of hatred that exists among the PC people. You can imagine Jeff R. posting his comment publicly and people like Cassiodorus using every sleazy trick to get him fired or otherwise ruin his life. They really are angry, wretched people.

26 Cassiodorus February 23, 2016 at 2:27 pm

Shorter anon: “It’s the greatest height of inciviliity to refuse to engage in a very serious discussion about whether or not the blacks are like apes.”

27 A Definite Beta Guy February 23, 2016 at 4:05 pm

Sissy-dorus,
Snark is the idiot’s version of wit.

28 Hazel Meade February 23, 2016 at 4:36 pm

What about engaging in a serious discussion of evolutionary psychology?

29 anon February 23, 2016 at 5:45 pm

Scientists have such debates Hazel, the bigots reject them as “PC.”

You can’t make this stuff up.

30 Nathan W February 23, 2016 at 6:55 pm

Any opinions on the professor at a Christian college who got fired for refusing to publicly recant about her belief that Christianity and Islam have some similarities?

What label to you apply, if not SJW, to this kind of treatment?

How about Zionist apologists who try to destroy the career of any politician who deigns to discuss violations on BOTH sides of the Israel/Palestine conflict? Are they also SJWs?

I wonder where the SJWs learned their tactics from …

31 Cliff February 23, 2016 at 10:24 pm

Nathan,

Are you serious? The academy is virulently anti-Israel. No one bats an eye at even outright lies about Israeli atrocities. Mention anything about the Palestinians and your livelihood is in jeopardy.

32 Nathan W February 23, 2016 at 11:28 pm

“No one bats an eye at even outright lies about Israeli atrocities.”

Name one that any particularly credible person has spoken of. Not some random anti-semite whackjob, but someone with stature in any circles of any actual repute.

To suggest that a politician is more in danger of criticizing Palestinians than to criticize Israeli actions is willfully ignorant.

33 Cliff February 24, 2016 at 2:18 am

I’m talking about academics here, there are numerous examples if you care to look. For political candidates, I agree it is not the same. I really don’t hear much discussion of Israel from candidates either way, other than the token indication that Israel is a good ally.

34 Nathan W February 24, 2016 at 5:41 am

Cliff – “there are numerous examples if you care to look”

It is contingent on you to prove your claims, not on me to spend hours searching the net for things I’ve never heard of.

I conclude that the examples are not so numerous, if existing at all.

35 Joël February 23, 2016 at 1:54 pm

Nick, the end of the first paragraph ends up with a definition of that term. I believe that this is the definition implicitly used by Kareem. It is understood (or it should be) that for the rest of that post when I use the term PC, I use it with this definition, with whatever ambiguity in implies.

Obviously many people on the right use a much larger definition, calling in general all people on the left the “PC crowd”. Even on the left, there is ambiguity with what PC means. For example, supporting affirmative action is often considered in informal discourses as being part of the “PC ethos”, while this does not seem to be related to PCness with the definition above. As I have said, the definition I written is still ambiguous, but this is to illustrate the ambiguity present (I believe) in Kareem’s article. That’s the difference between “1.– we should not employ racial/sexist/etc. slurs” and “2.– we must not employ racial/sexist/etc. slurs”. To make it clear, I agree with 1, not with 2.

By the way, I myself employ no racial or sexist slurs, as I prefer political slurs like Fascists and Nazis. When I am upset, I use the very un-PC word “subhuman”, which is arguably not racial nor sexist nor homophobic. (I follow in this usage Jean-Paul Sartre, who used the term for members of the communist party).

36 jeff February 23, 2016 at 1:25 pm

Good post Joel. I would add that expressing a political preference for decreased immigration rather than increased immigration also seems to earn you the label of racist/xenophobe/etc.

37 Jon Rodney February 23, 2016 at 1:41 pm

I’d be interested to hear a justification for decreased immigration that does not involve some level of xenophobia. Can someone help me out?

38 Dan in Euroland February 23, 2016 at 1:56 pm

Jon,

If peer effects are dominant in incentives to acquire human capital then widespread immigration of low HC groups can lead to a general collapse of human capital including in the native population. This is a simple extension of Bowles, Loury, Sethi: http://europepmc.org/articles/pmc4280025 (an another reason to disfavor open borders where the demographic effects will really stand out.)

39 Jon Rodney February 23, 2016 at 2:33 pm

Thanks, that’s a good example. It seems like most of the arguments for lower immigration (aside from the “Mexican’s are rapists!”-type rants) are this type of argument — basically protectionist arguments that we should restrict immigration to prevent decreased wages or decreased costs of HC investment in the native population.

These arguments seem rational, even if they are mistaken. For people who support this type of argument, I’m curious about: Do you believe in trade protectionism as well? If not, why not? The paper Dan refers to concludes that while lower levels of immigration may be beneficial, at too high a level they may become harmful. Assuming for the sake of argument that a model like the one Dan refers to above is correct, do you feel there is empirical evidence that our current immigration levels are near or exceeding the threshold that would start changing migration from a net gain to a net loss? Do you believe that any level of immigration is a net loss?

40 Anon. February 23, 2016 at 2:52 pm

The exact same argument works the other way around too, though, doesn’t it? Immigration of high HC groups can lead to general increase of HC including in the native population. That’s not an argument for decreased immigration, it’s an argument for selective immigration.

The average Indian-American household earns $101k, almost twice the average ($54k). Why not import some more high HC people?

41 Urstoff February 23, 2016 at 2:58 pm

A college degree is also a good proxy for HC. Would those same people support opening up immigration much more to those with college degrees? Why not open borders for people with graduate degrees?

42 A Definite Beta Guy February 23, 2016 at 7:19 pm

Importing high-skilled is better than low-skilled. Maybe. Under some conditions. America does not need to import a new ruling caste.

43 JWatts February 23, 2016 at 2:20 pm

“I’d be interested to hear a justification for decreased immigration that does not involve some level of xenophobia. Can someone help me out? ”

1) Large scale immigration of low skilled workers increases competition among low skilled workers in general and lowers wages.
2) Large scale immigration of low skilled workers lowers the median taxes and thus requires higher taxes in general in order to ensure the new median covers marginal government expenses.

44 Nathan W February 23, 2016 at 7:00 pm

Rational self interest of low skilled workers who would like to exclude the competition. But, they most engage in racial slurs and propagation of negative stereotypes instead …

45 Agra Brum February 23, 2016 at 2:47 pm

Every US politician can (and usually has) said “the immigration system needs to be reformed.” No one gets flack for that. People can say “we should take steps to reduce illegal immigration.” No one gets flack for that. When you say “Mexican immigrants are all rapists” a person does get flack for that. Likewise, if you said “America is a promised land for the white race” you would also get flack for that.
I assume you can see the differences.

46 Nathan W February 23, 2016 at 7:14 pm

Why do you hate white people so much?

(out of the Zionist apologist playbook…)

47 Cliff February 24, 2016 at 2:19 am

?? What is with this “Zionist apologist” shtick?

48 Nathan W February 24, 2016 at 5:52 am

People who, when someone expresses disapproval of ongoing colonist expansion into the West Bank (the main current area of activity of Zionism), will variously attack the person who disapproves, engage in various lies and obfuscation, etc. They approve of the Zionist agenda (God gave some piece of desert to the Jews, and therefore Israel has the right to steal it from the people who currently live there), and therefore as an “apologist” for these activities, they will engage in any and all rational or irrational defenses of what is presently happening.

Compare, for example, the many Israelis one might meet while travelling overseas who express “I wish Palestinians no ill will and do not support the settlements, but if we lift the military occupation then this will have negative security consequences for Israel” (not a Zionist apologist, no excuses being made) to someone who will stretch thinking and argumentation to the point of absurdity to defend what is unambiguously not acceptable unless one accepts God’s right to take that land away from its current inhabitants and give it to someone else. Another comparison is the perspective of an Israeli “I’m not quite sure it was the right thing to do, but we’re here now and we aren’t going anywhere, and we’re ready to fight for our security” as opposed to “we always had the right to do it, and moreover the Palestinians are ubiquitously scum and this additionally gives us further right to do what we did and are proceeding to do”.

A difference being between the Zionist him/herself (not the “apologist”0 and an outsider who broadly approves of their actions (this is the “apologist”) and are similarly willing to abuse both history and logic to justify the ethical correctness of what happened and is happening. (and if I do not state in unambiguous terms that terrorism is always wrong, someone will call me an anti-semite, which is not true, but anyways, this statement may ignored because a Zionist apologist will always attack the person who does not maximally agree with the Zionists or who offers the remotest sympathy for the historical losses of the former inhabitants of Palestine or the people presently living in the Occupied Territories.)

Short: Someone who thinks it’s OK to try to destroy people who mount the least criticism of any action whatsoever by the state of Israel.

49 Martin February 23, 2016 at 1:35 pm

I agree. This also touches on why I felt the Kareem “Conversation with Tyler,” was, by far, the weakest of the series (I say this as a life-long laker fan who was a boy in LA during the 80’s). I found all his assertions light on justification and argument, and heavy on emotion-based opinion. It was the only conversation where I came away liking the speaker less. I still love Kareem, let’s just refrain from calling him an intellectual.

50 anon February 23, 2016 at 1:58 pm

Would Kareem be a notable social commentator if he were not a superstar basketball player in his past life? The answer is clearly no. He has NBA Privilege.

He’s not a bad writer. He’s just not exceptionally good. He’s a mid-tier pundit.

51 Joël February 23, 2016 at 3:20 pm

“He’s not a bad writer. He’s just not exceptionally good. He’s a mid-tier pundit.”
Well put. I completely agree.

52 Urstoff February 23, 2016 at 2:04 pm

This was my general impression, too. Kareem has a unique cultural standing, so it’s nice to see someone such as him be more thoughtful than most former athletes or other celebrities, but that still doesn’t mean he’s an intellectual or has well constructed arguments for many of his positions. Kareem’s opinion on, say, the Donald Sterling debacle was much more interesting than his musings with Tyler on urban policy.

53 stan February 23, 2016 at 1:55 pm

Kareem’s piece is silly twaddle.

His condescension and hubris are off the charts. Standard for liberals. Telling people they are stupid while he diligently works to misunderstand their argument isn’t helping his cause.

54 Hazel Meade February 23, 2016 at 3:46 pm

Right. No matter how nicely and politely you express certain ideas, they will be branded as “insensitive” and therefore forbidden speech.

And personally, I’m not too worried about this when it comes to issues of racism and sexism. I’m worried that as soon as this is accepted when dicussing race and sex, they will try to extend it to economics. They will start linking economic ideas to racial oppression and declare it forbidden and racist to advocate free market policies.

55 JWatts February 23, 2016 at 4:48 pm

“I’m worried that as soon as this is accepted when dicussing race and sex, they will try to extend it to economics.”

I suspect that by that point it won’t matter. It looks like the push is to extend it to politics. It’s already headed that way. Once you’ve got the media declaring every other political point of view racist and sexist and you get a majority of voters to go along, you’ve won.

“My neighbor put a Libertarian bumper sticker on their vehicle. Why the very word is triggering! I’m calling the members of the HOA’s Speech code committee immediately for an emergency action meeting.”

56 Hazel Meade February 23, 2016 at 4:53 pm

My Gadsen Flag license plates are probably not long for this world.

57 JWatts February 23, 2016 at 8:05 pm

Clearly you are a subversive individual who’s probably a domestic terrorist and the cops are watch you:

http://reason.com/blog/2016/02/05/utah-fusion-center-warns-cops-watch-out

58 Nathan W February 23, 2016 at 6:41 pm

“the contribution of the Arabic world to the history of mathematics has been so far essentially negligible”

Ever try doing advanced algebra in Roman numerals?

59 Jamie_NYC February 23, 2016 at 8:18 pm

Are you sure that Arabic numerals were invented by the Arabs?

60 Nathan W February 23, 2016 at 9:29 pm
61 rayward February 23, 2016 at 1:09 pm

3. Jimi Hendrix (Purple Haze) is the most globally famous person. Bill Clinton comes in at 27th, two places behind Janis Joplin but 13 places ahead of Vladimir Putin, who comes in four places behind Vangelis (Chariots of Fire theme). Neil Young (Old Man) comes in at 62. Did anyone else see Jimmy Fallon imitating Neil Young and Neil Young imitating himself on the Jimmy Fallon Show recently?

62 Deek February 24, 2016 at 4:31 am

Calvin Klein must surely be the most famous person in the world. Every market in every town across the globe has his name displayed. And he could still walk through those markets and not be recognised. Kudos to you, Mr Klein.

63 Axa February 23, 2016 at 1:09 pm

#1: it opens with a really good question: what is world music? Also, it’s quite refreshing to follow WSJ references to metal bands in Indonesia or Botswana.

64 anon February 23, 2016 at 1:43 pm

FTA “Metal requires a high degree of musicianship, which is prized in countries with a classical-music bent, such as China, Finland and Japan. Unlike punk music, which is relatively easy to play, metal often involves superfast guitar playing and complex chord structures.”

I thought that quote was interesting.

65 carlolspln February 23, 2016 at 5:03 pm

“Metal requires a high degree of musicianship, which is prized in countries with a classical-music bent, such as China, Finland and Japan. Unlike punk music, which is relatively easy to play, metal often involves superfast guitar playing and complex chord structures.” [snip]

I would say it requires a high degree of technical facility, e.g. so called ‘shredding’.

Although I enjoy listening to it for brief periods, I [& I’m not alone] don’t find it ‘musical’ at all, in the sense of making me feel anything, or even making me think.

Underlining my point, I don’t find the crowds at the metal shows to be composed of very sophisticated people. Just look at how they’re dressed.

66 o. nate February 23, 2016 at 10:06 pm

I don’t know, man. Listen to some Autopsy. If you still don’t feel anything, maybe metal is not for you.

67 Urstoff February 23, 2016 at 2:13 pm

I typically think of world music as music that is at least somewhat rooted in the traditional music of that country. That’s an incredibly western-centric definition that lumps together staggering diversity, of course, but that seems to be how music vendors treat it. In that sense, most of these metal bands are not world music (with some exceptions, e.g., Finnish folk metal).

68 o. nate February 23, 2016 at 3:27 pm

One of the fun things about the metal scene is that it is genuinely international. One of my favorite albums from last year was by King Heavy which has members from Chile and the Netherlands, although the vocals are in English. Language is less of a barrier in the more extreme end of metal, where vocals are usually unintelligible anyway, but in the more accessible end, English tends to be the lingua franca (or should I say lingua metallum?).

69 Dave Smith February 23, 2016 at 1:18 pm

Putin et. al. still scare me more.

70 Dan in Euroland February 23, 2016 at 1:19 pm

RE: 7

The most glaring error KAJ makes is that he interprets PC as simply a system of social norms. But PC is really a theory of social causation that militantly excludes alternative hypothesis for why certain outcomes occur.

E.g. to the PC person it is not enough to act politely to homosexuals, but one also cannot even entertain the idea that it is a condition driven by improper social rearing or even a pathogenic infection (to name two popular alternative hypos.)

71 asdf February 23, 2016 at 1:30 pm

Indeed. PC is the idea that “human neurological uniformity” is true, and since its true, any differences in outcomes must be due to conscious or unconscious “biases”.

If PC is right about human neurological uniformity that at least some of their ideas make sense. “Something” has to be causing the black/white gap, for instance.

However, if its false, then all their conclusions are false. Ultimately, Kareem’s entire point rests on the idea that anti-PC people want to “do nothing” to solve various perceived problems. However, if the real problem is genetic, there is nothing to do. These outcomes are set in stone and can’t be changed. Attempts to ignore reality mean punishing innocents for crimes they didn’t commit to achieve goals that are impossible.

The entire PC apparatus is based on a science denying lie perpetuated in order for a minority to gain power and exploit the majority. PC purges people who question human neurological uniformity because if it were given a fair hearing it would win.

72 Philip K Dick February 23, 2016 at 1:35 pm

+1

73 anon February 23, 2016 at 1:50 pm

No, Philip K Dick does not endorse that message.

http://deoxy.org/pkd_how2build.htm

74 Cliff February 23, 2016 at 11:27 pm

Hmm?

75 Nathan W February 23, 2016 at 7:22 pm

Denying which science?

76 Jamie_NYC February 23, 2016 at 8:24 pm

Biology.

77 Nathan W February 23, 2016 at 9:36 pm

Well that settles EVERYTHING. I defer to people who claim “but science…” without so much as mentioning a single study.

Be more specific please.

78 Cliff February 23, 2016 at 11:49 pm

Haven’t we given you like a million links before? Why dont you try these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_IQ_Controversy,_the_Media_and_Public_Policy_%28book%29#Synopsis http://drjamesthompson.blogspot.com/2013/12/isir-what-do-intelligence-researchers.html

These tell you what actual scientists in the field think.

79 Cliff February 23, 2016 at 11:51 pm

By the way to all those shouting down Sailer as a racist, intelligence researchers voted him one of the top sources for intelligence journalism- above the New York Times.

80 Cliff February 23, 2016 at 11:59 pm
81 Nathan W February 24, 2016 at 1:40 am

Yes, you guys have posted lots of links to studies. And I’ve debunked every one of them using introductory statistics (“genetics effect” is in fact a residual which sums up all unknown effects) and mid-level undergrad biology. But since you’re only sharing information on opinion polls, and no actual science, there’s not even any debunking to do. All it is is an opinion poll!

In response to the supposed “evidence”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_IQ_Controversy,_the_Media_and_Public_Policy_%28book%29#Synopsis

a) It claims that ingelligence can be measured with SOME accuracy. Uncontroversial. b) The study of psychologists … please review the required courses of any pschology or psychiatry program in various universities, and let me know if any study of molecular biology or genetics is required. These are pscyhologists, not experts on genetics, and the study reveals their opinions, not any empirical facts. Consider what is presented as the “ringer” for evidence, that “45% voted that it was a “product of genetic and environmental variation”.” – Observe that this is consistent with me wondering that, maybe, there is a 1% different between groups (but that other factors are almost certainly more relevant for differences in averages between groups), in which case I also fall into the same group. c) They suggest that anonymity of the results was out of fear of PC lynching, whereas in fact this is consistent with run of the mill ethics requirements in academics – you do not reveal the identity of the respondents, only the methods used to get a sample of respondents. d) They present a strawman which suggests that the media presents the dichotomy as being between 100% inheritance and 0% inheritability of “IQ”, or average ethnic differences on these standardized tests. e) The surveyed experts broadly indicated that IQ test results had been misused, but still thought they could be useful. f) They suggest that editorial predispositions influence reporting. Uncontroversial.

Here we have an opinion survey of people from a field that does not require genetics knowledge as a part of their training. What sort of evidence is that about genetic differences?

In response to http://drjamesthompson.blogspot.com/2013/12/isir-what-do-intelligence-researchers.html

a) Again, this is an opinion poll and does not constitute any sort of evidence whatsoever. Furthermore, given the reality that people who research “intelligence” do indeed face the prospect of social sanction, I suggest that those willing to nevertheless proceed are likely to be heavily skewed to those who take pride in their willingness to soldier on in the face of criticism, for example when their selected methods lead them to find certain unpopular results. I repeat, this is an opinion poll, not science of any sort. b) There is no effort to evaluate the methodological quality of the papers published by the respondents, so we have no idea which responses are more credible. However, it is worth noting that the sample results are heavily skewed towards LESS (or ZERO) genetic explanation for average differences in IQ test results among groups. c) He claims that the “consensus” is the median response. That meets no definition of “consensus” I’ve ever heard, and is the only obvious demonstration of bias. d) Cognitive ability is generally agreed upon as explaining contributions to society. Uncontroversial and unrelated to question of racial differneces. e) The opinion poll suggests that experts believe motivation to be relevant to scores on an IQ test. f) The experts did not evaluate media reporting on the research very highly. Uncontroversial – this applies to any field. f) Experts rate public opinion as being more ideological than scientific. Uncontroversial – this applies to any controversial field. g) They highlight (mucho kudoz for the honest critique) that respones rates were very low.

In response to http://drjamesthompson.blogspot.com/2013/12/the-quality-of-intelligence-journalism.html:

Another opinion poll. Where’s the science?

Short: These are opinion polls, not science, and do not in any way shape or form constitute any sort of proof of any of the statements made by those who fervently believe the low-grade science which purports “evidence” of genetically determined (no genes ever mentioned though) causes for differences in IQ test results between ethnic/racial groups.

Final point: Please consider self selection bias. People who research “genetic” (no genes ever mentioned) explanations for differences in standardized tests between ethnic/racial groups are almost certain to be a highly self selected group, and will not include geneticists (people who actually know stuff about genes) who think this is not an interesting or promising area of research, and who focus their energies on more relevant topics.

Do you have any actual science to link to, or just opinion polls of a group which common sense tells us is exposed to high self selection effects?

82 Cliff February 24, 2016 at 2:23 am

Nathan,

We already have posted a ton of links to studies. Since you apparently think you are qualified to decide which studies can be dismissed (hint: you are not) I tried giving you the opinions of people who actually are equipped to evaluate the science. You just don’t care about reality, so please stop f*cking up our comment threads. Honestly you’re worse than a AGW denier or truther at this point.

83 Cliff February 24, 2016 at 2:27 am

“opinion polls of a group which common sense tells us is exposed to high self selection effects”

Your “common sense” is horrible. The people polled are NOT “People who research “genetic” explanations for differences in standardized tests between ethnic/racial groups” These are THE experts in the field of intelligence! You just don’t care because you think expert researchers don’t know basic statistics and that you are somehow better than them. The pressure in academia against any genetic basis for inter-group differences is enormous.

84 Cliff February 24, 2016 at 2:32 am

Have you already “debunked” the studies in this commentary? https://z139.wordpress.com/2012/06/10/the-facts-that-need-to-be-explained/

If not that should give you something to do.

85 Cliff February 24, 2016 at 2:38 am

By the way, don’t you think the lack of reference to specific genes, which you apparently think is a smoking gun, is because we have not yet identified the genes that account for intelligence? It is widely accepted that IQ is mediated by thousands of different genes. Yet you do not dispute that intelligence has a genetic basis. If the genes associated with IQ were known and did not differ between the “races” I would find that to be highly meaningful. But given that we do NOT know the genes that are responsible for IQ, the lack of reference to specific such genes seems utterly unremarkable. Isn’t it?

86 Nathan W February 24, 2016 at 6:16 am

“We already have posted a ton of links to studies.”

Send more then. I debunked those ones using introductory statistics criticisms. Maybe there are better studies? Imagine I were to offer you a poll of political scientists, and 55% expressed a certain view. Would that be conclusive? No. It’s an opinion poll.

“you apparently think you are qualified to decide which studies can be dismissed (hint: you are not)”

I’m pretty humble, but I know that I have a strong educational background which is relevant to understanding this stuff. If the methods are beyond my ability to understand, I’m quite open to saying so. Three variable regressions (education, SES, “genetic effect”) where all unknown effects are bundled together as a “genetic effect” would get a big fat F minus in some pretty early year stats courses. This has been a common theme in the studies you guys have passed me to date.

“These are THE experts in the field of intelligence!”

Apparently. But when the “experts” say “genetic effect” and then never talk about genes, it sounds pretty bunk to me. I don’t doubt that they know an awful lot more than me about what intelligence IS, for analytical purposes. But a cursory review of all papers I’ve seen yet suggest that I actually know way more than them about actual genetics, which they purport to be the explanation for the regression residual.

” You just don’t care because you think expert researchers don’t know basic statistics and that you are somehow better than them.”

Actually, the results suggest that I agree with probably about a third or a half of the researchers. The point is that it’s an opinion poll, and science is not decided as a matter of opinion polls. In science, discussion of methodology is all that matters, and I cut straight to the chase every time you guys post a link to an actual study. I’m trying to understand what you guys find convincing, and to date it’s been some pretty low-grade “science”. I understand that when you observe someone in a socially inferior position, it is tempting to assume that this is due to their inherent inferiority – the intuitive appeal is understandable, and this predisposes people. But, that’s the point of good science – it cuts through the intuitive appeals and the predispositions, and demands actual evidence. Not correlation, but causation. Without a smoking gun, science is not satisfied.

“The pressure in academia against any genetic basis for inter-group differences is enormous.”

Maybe. But that does not make the courageous people who nevertheless do the research correct for the fact that it is socially discouraged.

“we have not yet identified the genes that account for intelligence”

That’s the point! You could equally insert “culture” or “national institutions” in each and every single paper, and the results would be statistically equivalent but appeal to different audiences. Positing genetic effects where there is no discussion of genes is absurd. The strongest the can usually say, if they were not biased, is “here’s all the other unknown effects, and we suspect a genetic effect lies therein”. That’s the strongest unbiased statement that can be concluded upon at present levels of knowledge. I don’t expect to convince a lifelong racist that non-whites are genetically equal, just that they cannot have certainty about this at present levels of knowledge.

” If the genes associated with IQ were known and did not differ between the “races” I would find that to be highly meaningful.”

An important caveat. Since intelligence is complex, and presumably determined as a function of hundreds of genes, the fact of determining “intelligence genes” in one population, and then finding that they differed in the other population, would not be conclusive either.

Science is a damn bitch. Standards of proof are high. This isn’t social sciences here, we’re talking about genes, but the “intelligence experts” are still playing at elementary social sciences research methods but claiming a veneer of natural sciences legitimacy, which plain and simply does not represent the methods used. For a group who broadly and easily disregards any inconvenient social sciences research for the fact of it being social sciences and not STEM, it should be clearly understood that there is absolutely zero STEM knowledge informing the methods used.

87 Nathan W February 24, 2016 at 7:59 am

In response to https://z139.wordpress.com/2012/06/10/the-facts-that-need-to-be-explained/

First, this is not at all like the garbage studies other people linked to, and the use of language demonstrates caution in not blindly accepting the desired result.

“a large stubborn Black-White differential in intelligence … explains a large portion of the social outcome difference”

Or, the same factors explain both their poor results on standardized tests (a nearly perfect proxy for “intelligence” according to the word choice of the author). For example, a) they aren’t very studious, ever, for cultural reasons, and therefore perform poorly on standardized tests and therefore don’t get other sorts of opportunities as a result of poor educational achievement, b) they lack in discipline, perhaps for cultural reasons, with similar effects on standardized test performance and other outcomes, c) they are rebellious for cultural and historical reasons, leading them to not give two figs about some stupid test, and also not do well in education and the workplace. There are THREE really really plausible explanations which are perfectly consistent for the data, but do not point you to the conclusion that “a large stubborn Black-White differential in intelligence … explains a large portion of the social outcome difference”. Poor results on standardized tests and poor social outcomes are caused by the same factors, not claims asserted by the authors, according to this interpretation.

“Within populations, intelligence is highly heritable”

This allows them to look at evolution and jump from “plausible” to “therefore true”.

“the behavioral genetic default is that this differential also has a high heritability”

OBVIOUSLY intelligence has SOME heritability. However, the author produces a theoretical equation, fabricates a few numbers, and then proceeds as though both his theoretical equation and fabricated numbers are true. This defies basic logic, no formal training required.

He presents some “facts” (a handful are indeed are based on unambiguous facts, but the conclusions are not the only plausible explanations)

1) “the difference is a true difference in psychometric intelligence” – first, refer to my three plausible explanations for how this is not true. He presents some citations, which I did not read, but he doesn’t even try to legitimize is claim with any sort of explanation, he just says that other people said the same thing. That’s not any sort of proof whatsoever. This is not archaeology or history where such shortcomings absolutely must be tolerated. We’re talking living breathing people who are right in front of us right now, and I just gave three LIKELY reasons to believe that there is at least some bias. Yet he claims zero bias in the measurement. He is making his case, yes, but I am not buying it. That’s science. He never proved his point. Why should I believe it?

2) “it largely represents a difference in the general factor” – the “proof” is a combination of assertions which are not actually true. Check section C. Only #3 of 5 assertions are true, and I’ve seen evidence that changes in national IQ results over time do not correlate with changes in brain size, outright refuting one of his supporting arguments. His citation for these five claims doesn’t prove them either – he cites someone who cites someone who cited someone … where’s the proof? Moreover, the three cultural explanations I provided above are perfectly consistent with virtually all of the 15 supporting arguments, each of which he purports to be evidence of some sort of genetic effect.

3) “it has shown great persistence, having decreased little in the last century” – See section A1. The mathematical formula is CONSTRUCTED to prove his point. Having defined his terms the way he does, he cannot but fail to draw the inconvenient conclusion that appeals to racists. In a nearly ubiquitous mistake in related literature, he goes from an imperfectly observed phenotype to an utterly unobserved genotype, but this does not stop him from declaring the genotype as one of the variables. Kudoz for calling it a hypothesis. He is not attempting to be dishonest, and this is clear for his language use. A potentially damning point here is the young age assessments, to which I offer three critiques: a) ever spoken with a black man? They use different words, different language, etc. The IQ test may not use language they are as familiar with. b) Standardized tests of intelligence are notoriously inaccurate for children. c) Maybe it wasn’t in vogue for African American parents to engage in all those sorts of early learning strategies that are common among many parents. This is consistent with my poorly-informed understanding of child rearing in such communities, where children are left sitting in front of the TV or playing with other kids, not dragged by parents to try reading and maths at a pre-school age.

4) “there is currently regression with age” – The difference has persisted over time. My three plausible explanations for this were offered in the beginning, and I don’t think any of them have changed much over time.

5) ” there appears to be a robust biological component to the difference” – There’s some actual science here for a change. I admit that this looks pretty damning at first sight. However, I offer a common explanation that poor nutrition as a young child (generally linked to poverty, common among African Americans) negatively affect brain development. This is why so many aid interventions in Africa focus on infant and child nutrition, because the effects persist into adult life. If I were to state a prior of what might convince me in the absence of strictly genetic explanations, it would be a sample of black and white populations that you knew had similar nutrition at a young age.

6) “the difference shows a Spearman/Jensen Effect ” – Section D) maybe black parents don’t teach their children numbers. Maybe when someone asks them to repeat irrelevant lists of numbers, they are on average less inclined to try. On words – cultural bias can easily be asserted. Section G) The adopted twin approach is needed to reject much of the environmental assumption. I can’t trace the literature back … someone cited someone who cited someone else… what are the METHODS?

7) “biometric analysis indicates that the gap has a sizable genetic component” – not sure why, but he feels the burden of proof is on the environmentalists. Not a very good way to prove a point.

8) “the difference is not caused by environmental influences unique to one or the other populations ” – The environmental difference does not have to be unique to a group for it to cause the difference, only that there are mean environmental differences. He briefly considers this very possibility, but then returns to rejecting the stronger claim rather than seriously considering the weaker one.

9) “if environmental influences are causing the gap they act fairly uniformly across the population” – looking at a high IQ child, observes stronger regression to a (lower) mean among blacks. This is not inconsistent with any of the explanations I initially posited.

10) “the difference is no smaller at the upper SES levels than the lower ” – I think it suffices to say that if a black person achieves high SES but still has one SD lower score than high SES whites on a standardized test, then this is a pretty strong indication that something else is at play. Cultural differences? A distaste for dumb tests? How are they achieving high SES if they’re so dumb according to the standardized test? It doesn’t add up. I see this as strong contrary proof against the sequence of inference.

11) “family influences can not explain the difference,” – same problem of inference as above. The lack of unique differences is irrelevant, since differences in average environmental effects is sufficient. Also, he sees the young age difference as conclusive in rejecting this – I offered plausible and even likely explanations for at least some of this difference above.

12) ” Mixed race individual perform intermediate to monoracial individuals ” – It would be sufficient that, on average, the alternative explanations are less relevant for mixed individuals. For example, if you have one black parent and one white parent, you’re exposed to the language and culture of both parents, and it is reasonable to assume that this would persist over generations. Consider that if you have one parent of Scottish ancestry and one parent of Ukrainian ancestry, they pass on the cultural and linguistic idiosyncracies of each.

13) “the Difference correlates with physical indexes of Caucasian admixture in the Black population ” – He is unsure how to reconcile this with environmental explanations. See critique to point 12) for how this can be done.

14) “environmental interventions appear to show little to no lasting effect” – This is not inconsistent with any of the alternative explanations I proposed. Funny thing, in the related sections, they find that the biological explanations explain 1/15th of the gap, precisely the 1% difference I proposed would be about as much as I would see as plausible, given some background in genetics and evolutionary biology.

Finally, check the graph in section A1. The size of the intervention effect is enormously higher for black children than for white children, suggesting that they easily overcome whatever disadvantage they may originally have had, rising to nearly the white mean in the case of the intervention. To me this is evidence that the inheritable differences, if any, are not very large.

88 John February 23, 2016 at 1:22 pm

5. Next month I’m taking my daughter to a performance of Saint-Saëns third symphony, the organ symphony. It was her favorite movie.

89 S February 23, 2016 at 1:34 pm

PC makes communicating harder. Kareem is in favor of this.

90 Nathan W February 23, 2016 at 9:40 pm

If inferior rapist pedophile scum like you would just accept your lot in life, and ideally self select out of the gene pool, things would be much better .

There, does that improve communicating? How open to communicating do you feel right now?

91 bluto February 23, 2016 at 1:37 pm

That Pantheon widget really displays the average is over/the anomaly of the industrial revolution. For thousands of years almost all the globally famous come from a small number of categories (politics and religion), then for 200-300 years there’s an explosion of categories (and the arts and sciences take dramatic share), then in the recent 3-4 decades it’s back to a small number of categories all tied to mass media (athletes and entertainers).

92 Noumenon72 February 23, 2016 at 3:34 pm

How are you seeing this? All I can find is the charts for who’s alive today and the rank-ordered list.

93 bluto February 23, 2016 at 4:38 pm

There’s a big graphic in the middle of the screen with sliders for the year? It looks like this for me (births from 1970-2015):

http://imgur.com/KSy3SLV

I’m on Chrome on a PC if that makes a difference.

94 Edward Burke February 23, 2016 at 1:43 pm

#2: OR: “Anonymity lets me concentrate exclusively on giving interviews about my anonymity.”

95 anon February 23, 2016 at 1:55 pm

7. I think Kareem was right to start from civility. It is good, and in 2016 underrated.

In terms of what is PC, it has always been about the things that are true or false, and the tension with what can be said about them. It is NOT a get out of jail free card, where you can say false things, or deny true things, because for your group that is correct.

IOW, show your work.

96 chuck martel February 23, 2016 at 2:14 pm

3. Four of the top five are dead. How long must one be dead before their name comes off the list? Who is Hayao Miyazaki?

97 derek February 23, 2016 at 3:04 pm

Japanese film animator. Quite good, with a heavy usage of magical realism/folklore elements. The most recommended titles are probably Spirited Away and My Neighbor Totoro.

98 Hazel Meade February 23, 2016 at 3:49 pm

I liked Princess Mononoke.

99 chuck martel February 23, 2016 at 8:32 pm
100 CG February 23, 2016 at 2:16 pm

7 – “Anti-political-correctness rhetoric serves as a clever tool for politicians who wish to distract voters from the real issues (and their lack of solutions) by tapping into their darkest fears about those who are different than themselves.”

If the issue is that provocative rhetoric is distracting from the substance of the underlying argument, then the proper response is not to demand that speakers use softer rhetoric, but to demonstrate how the inflammatory rhetoric fails to support a coherent argument. By trying to “scrub away prejudice”, as Kareem states, proponents of politically correct terminology make the same mistake they claim their opponents are making – namely, distracting from the underlying issue by addressing the speaker and the tone of the argument, rather than focusing on the substance of the arguments.

101 JWatts February 23, 2016 at 2:28 pm

To this, I would add, that the PC correct Left never seems to back down or apologize for their PC witch hunts, even when they go tragically wrong.

The Duke Lacrosse players come to mind. Or more recently the fake rape episode at UVA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_lacrosse_case

http://reason.com/blog/2015/12/01/one-year-after-rolling-stones-uva-rape-d

102 JWatts February 23, 2016 at 2:29 pm

“PC correct..” – from the Department of Redundancy Department

103 anon February 23, 2016 at 2:33 pm

PCers and anti-PCers both have a bad record. Real PCers can’t read on the safety of GMOs. Real anti-PCers can’t read on climate change. In both cases their groups tell them to deny expertise for politically acceptable truth.

“That’s PC” is a claim without value at this point.

104 JWatts February 23, 2016 at 2:47 pm

“Real PCers can’t read on the safety of GMOs. Real anti-PCers can’t read on climate change. ”

There’s no direct connection between PC and GMO’s or climate change. There’s certainly overlap in the various groups, but not enough that I would begin to conflate the two. Certainly Sabrina Rubin Erdely was a horrible reporter who was on a Politically Correct witch hunt and found a gullible mark at UVA to write a story about. But I have no idea what her stance on GMO is, nor is it relevant to the conversation.

105 Hazel Meade February 23, 2016 at 4:44 pm

The PC crowd does try to enforce conformity using PC tactics on other issues besides race and gender. They’ll go into the same hyperventilating rage if you defend GMOs or deny climate change as if you said something vaguely racist.

That’s really what bothers me. I fear that if we allow them to make a culture in which certain ideas are off limits, they will start expanding the realm of what ideas are verboten. They definitely already try on climate change.

106 JWatts February 23, 2016 at 4:54 pm

Oh I don’t disagree that PC witch hunters are prone to heavy mood affiliation. However, I think it’s foolish to frame the argument that way. You can still find at least one PC witch hunter who is on either side of those issues. So you’re crafting a weak point into your argument, that doesn’t advance the central premise of the point.

107 anon February 23, 2016 at 5:42 pm

But climate change is real and PC at the same time. How can it be?

108 JWatts February 23, 2016 at 8:16 pm

There’s nothing inherently contradictory about being correct and being PC. It’s just not the defining nor limiting characteristic.

109 asdf February 23, 2016 at 2:31 pm

Probably one of the most recent effects of PC is the attempt to force public school integration of middle class whites with underclass NAMs. This is justified since if HBD isn’t true, therefore segregation must be causing NAM underperformance and has to be corrected. If you question this narrative, even to protect the education and safety of your own children, you are un-personed. This is part of a wide ranging and well funded initiative at both the federal and local level.

This quote captures the drive for this pretty well:

“The same people who are most in favor of integration (the aging yuppies) are the same people who take the greatest pains to protect their children from integrated schools, spending upwards of $40 and $50,000 per year from even before kindergarten to avoid the consequences of their own deeply held beliefs.

The reason why is to defend their own probably-regressed-to-the-mean children from the competition presented by the unterstrivers. Let little Aiden learn to paint with young Madison at the private school, while little Johnny gets some early diversity training from Demetrius. The smart set wants to kick the ladder away and use a colored buffer population to defend themselves from competition, while decrying their pale, heroin-addicted, jobless co-ethnics for failing to compete in the dynamic global free market economy.”

PC is an alliance of elites and a slave caste to try and impoverish the white middle class for the benefit of the elite while throwing a few paltry scraps to their NAM peasant clients. It is justified under the religion of equality, a way of hacking white peoples natural sense of fairness and altruism which in the past has been key to white middle class solidarity, the well functioning model of western civilization, and keeping elite political, social, and economic power in line so everyone gets a fair shake and a fair chance. Anything that could counter that narrative and allow the white middle class to band together must be crushed ruthlessly. The size of the injustice dictates how ruthless the PC suppression has to be. As the lies of PC become more acute and the living conditions of middle class whites deteriorate even they can’t settle for the rationalizations and broken promises of PC ideology.

Since middle class whites lack a legitimate way to articulate and act upon this knowledge of getting jobbed, they lash out in ways like voting for Donald Trump, but if they could simply state the problem accurately without PC they would probably find healthier ways to deal with the issues at hand.

It’s not about language or politeness. It’s about a fight for our right to exist and live fulfilling lives, rather then be absorbed into the slave caste of some dysfunctional tanish future.

110 Joël February 23, 2016 at 3:24 pm

“Anything that could counter that narrative and allow the white middle class to band together must be crushed ruthlessly.” Is that just me? When I read this sentence, I can’t help thinking to Sanders being that anything.

111 Nathan W February 23, 2016 at 7:39 pm

For a group who tends to on the one hand hold that black people are inferior and that schooling is irrelevant to determining abilities on things like standardized tests, the simultaneous concern that going to school with black kids will negatively affect their education seems rather … inconsistent, shall we say.

“PC is an alliance of elites and a slave caste to try and impoverish the white middle class for the benefit of the elite…”

Surely an accurate assessment. PC is out to destroy the white middle class. We hate ourselves THAT much.

“The size of the injustice dictates how ruthless the PC suppression has to be.”

How ruthless? Really. The use of free speech to decry the free speech of another?

” As the lies of PC become more acute ”

Which lies?

” the living conditions of middle class whites deteriorate ”

Yes, we can squarely point our fingers at PC speech for this. Eschewing progressive tax rates are irrelevant. Exposure to international trade is irrelevant. Technologically-driven innovation as a cause of short-term inequality is irrelevant. It’s all the fault of the PCers.

“It’s about a fight for our right to exist and live fulfilling lives, rather then be absorbed into the slave caste of some dysfunctional tanish future.”

Sounds more like a good reason to band together with the minorities and work together for common cause. But that would be disgusting on so many levels that you would never support it.

112 asdf February 23, 2016 at 10:54 pm

I’m concerned about quality of life, like the quality of life of having my kid getting bullied by thugs and his classroom being a chaotic zoo. There is a reason good white anti-racist liberals pay a lot of money to send their kids to schools that aren’t violent mad houses.

PC tries to destroy the career, social life, and finances of anyone that gets out of line. In some western countries they also put you in jail for the wrong kind of speech. In much of Europe this post would get me a visit from the Gestapo.

“Which lies?”

All of PC is based on HBD denial. Lots of lies flow out of it when you start with a big lie.

What kind of a future could we build together? Brazil? South Africa? These are shit countries with shit futures. Demographics IS Destiny. Genetics is far more important then any other factor in the long run, this is really obvious from evidence around the world.

There’s a limit to human altruism. Altruism comes from surplus. As NAMs increase as % of population there are more demands on surplus and less people producing surplus. This is a basic fact of life. You can’t get something from nothing. For people on an economics you’d think such a fact would be obvious. You’d think the takers/makers set would be all over this idea.

Like almost everyone I know who believes in HBD, I was an anti-racist libertarian once too. It was based on two things:
1) Empirical knowledge that markets were usually right in most cases, I was pretty consequentialist in deciding what I supported
2) The idea that if the government got out of the way, I was in control of my own fate. I could do whatever I wanted with hard work, nothing and nobody was going to hold me back.

Well, empirical knowledge forced me to believe HBD. The evidence as overwhelming. I hate the implications and the knowledge hasn’t made me happier, but its undeniably true. I can’t ignore it. I guess the same instincts that make me really good at statistics also make it hard to ignore the evidence here. Most HBD supporters I know are also strong mathematical thinkers.

And on #2 I’ve come to grips with the fact that I’m not in control of much of my fate. I’ve also come to grip with the idea that, in some ways, “I didn’t built that”. My genes did.

Does it suck that these people don’t have any control over their fate and are doomed to live in third world shitholes or urban ghettos? Yeah, there ain’t much cosmic fairness I suppose.

Is getting so upset about it you lie to yourself and commit cultural suicide in a vain attempt of bashing your head against reality somehow noble? No. It’s especially ignoble when your just using the situation to cuck-striver yourself to the top at your neighbors expense.

Get used to the fact that the world ain’t perfect and aim at reasonable goals with a track record of success. Like making a successful middle class white society and being charitable towards your neighbors (your real neighbors that you share real things in common with).

Once you realize what is and isn’t possible in this world based on a realistic view of empirical material reality, you’ll realize there is still a lot of good to do. Racism is, when you get right down to it, an expression of love. The belief that you have an extended family, with all the things having a wide extended family implies. It’s about building a society together and helping to live in harmony and lead fulfilling lives as individuals and a community.

All you offer in return is a chaotic mass of incompatible atomized individuals sniping at each other until the who system collapses under its own weight.

If you don’t like the facts of reality, take it up with the Creator God. In the meantime, back on earth, I’ve got a community I love and want to flourish.

113 Nathan W February 24, 2016 at 12:11 am

” In some western countries they also put you in jail for the wrong kind of speech.”

Only if you promote violence for the fact of belonging to a particular group, and rightly so, as this is utterly inconsistent with any broader notions of freedom, and could lead to highly undesirable consequences. In short, it criminalizes any proto-Nazism which comes with a penchant for violence.

“All of PC is based on HBD denial.”

An outrageous lie. No one is denying biodiversity. Do you actually believe this pathetic strawman argument?

“Genetics is far more important then any other factor in the long run, this is really obvious from evidence around the world.”

Let me know when you’ve identified those genes you’re talking about. Replaces “genetics” with “culture” or “national institutions” in practically every case, and the arguments start to refer to things that we actually have factual knowledge about.

“Altruism comes from surplus.”

No. Game theory and cooperation. For an intro to biology example, you have chipmunks who call out DANGER when they see a hawk, bringing higher risk of death upon the individual but improving the success of the group. Altruism is beneficial because cooperation is beneficial, and a genetic short-cut has proven to be an evolutionary advantage. Also, consider standard “tit for tat” strategies, where a good first move is met in kind, and so is a bad first move. Computer simulations proved this to be the ideal Cold War nuclear response, a strategy that won much accolades for driving our way of formally thinking about defensive strategy in the nuclear era.

“As NAMs increase as % of population there are more demands on surplus”

You are presupposing their inferiority, which is not even remotely proven (please cite studies which you feel show otherwise).

“empirical knowledge forced me to believe HBD.”

Please cite studies.

“Most HBD supporters I know are also strong mathematical thinkers.”

And most mathematical thinkers have only passing familiarity with even basic genetics or evolutionary biology concepts. The fact of mathematical knowledge does not imply knowledge of things which use mathematical tools.

“commit cultural suicide”

Last I heard, giving a crap about people was pretty central to our cultural values. And anyways … what’s the “culture” you’re talking about? Greek? German? Hungarian? Norwegian? Which culture precisely do you feel is “comitting cultural suicide”?

“Racism is … an expression of love.”

Now that’s a pretty sick sort of way of thinking. I don’t doubt that it feels that way to some of you, but when it is synonymous with irrational and unfounded hate and/or disparagement of other groups, I’m not sure that “love” is really quite the word to use. I mean, really, do you actually support helping white people who are down and out, for example those who have succumbed to addiction, who lost jobs through no fault of their own and were unable to locate other work, etc.?

“The belief that you have an extended family, with all the things having a wide extended family implies.”

Extend it some more. We are all human. Even a dachshund and a St Bernard, sometimes after a short tense period, like to play together and sniff each other’s butts unless they’ve been abused and taught to be angry.

“All you offer in return is a chaotic mass of incompatible atomized individuals”

Not at all. If the “chaotic mass of … atomized individuals” is your problem, then you should be supremely upset with modern conceptions of individual liberty in a capitalist system, not the fact that people come from different cultural origins and that sometimes we face certain incompatibilities between these cultures (although they can nevertheless get along most of the time, much like Protestants and Catholics mostly learned to do).

“I’ve got a community I love ”

Why not focus on loving them and refrain from peddling low-grade science in the name of racist attitudes?

114 asdf February 24, 2016 at 1:22 am

If you look up the record of anti-free speech government activity in the west you will not be sanguine about it.

“No one is denying biodiversity.”

Your denying right now in this thread…heck in your very reply to this.

I’m not going to debate you on the HBD evidence. It’s out there and I’ve found it conclusive. If you want to truth, its really not hard to find. Your resistance is emotional, not fact based.

If “tit for tat” is true, what “tat” should be linked to the white response to NAM dysfunction? How is taking on a bunch of net parasites and evolutionary strategy?

Most people believe in social insurance (people try their best to pay into the system, people who meet unfortunate fates by chance take out). Many also believe in pure charity provided its within reason along with other factors. They don’t believe in unlimited welfare to hostile permanent net takers on a scale that bankrupts society.

My culture is the people of my community that I have shared familial, racial, religious, historical, and national ties with, among many other kinds of social bonds. Most people understand intuitively what the relevant social mores appropriate to those various degrees and kinds of connection are. Your application of shallow and generic idealogical abstractions to all social relations uniformly is probably a sing of stunted social development and understanding.

“irrational and unfounded hate and/or disparagement of other groups”

It’s not irrational, its based on science and lived experience.

I don’t particularly disparage these groups in the sense that I don’t see it as their fault and I probably wouldn’t act different if I were them. The enemy here isn’t really the NAMs themselves, its utopian liberals and cynical strivers who are engaged in a tragic and irreversible experiment likely to end in disaster through a mixture of ignorance, greed, narcissism, and personal weakness among other vices. If it makes you feel any better, I get where empathy from NAMs comes from, and it would probably be better for the man in the street to not think about HBD too hard (something that is basically impossible when HBD just beat up his kid at school). However, policy makers need to be realistic about how the world works to make good policy, and part of being a virtuous person is seeking the truth and taking the actions necessary to lead to a better world.

If I seem harsh to the NAMs themselves, its because I see lots of good people being hurt by the cult of equality, and because one of the things that makes HBD so hard to deal with is how liberals have inflamed victimhood and resentment amongst that population. Hard to be charitable to someone that hates you and works against you at every turn.

“I mean, really, do you actually support helping white people who are down and out, for example those who have succumbed to addiction, who lost jobs through no fault of their own and were unable to locate other work, etc.?”

It’s what I try to do in my life. I see liberals and anti-racists as some of the main opponents of out-of-luck whites in my community, and their policies on immigration/race are devastating them. Moreover, its VERY obvious that elites and liberal strivers hate hate hate working class whites and can’t wait for them to just die already. I wasn’t around in the pre-civil rights south, but the way they talk about rednecks sounds and awful lot like how people talked about blacks back then.

If you really love your community you should oppose policies that hurt the people in your community. This is basic.

“Extend it some more. We are all human.”

Maybe, but we gave total equality of everyone a try and it failed. The world we have is the world of equality as religion. Many of the races really are too different to work together. Empirical reality trumps desires or hopes.

“(although they can nevertheless get along most of the time, much like Protestants and Catholics mostly learned to do)”

They learned to get along because they were all White Europeans Christians with roughly equal genetic traits (IQ, behavioral traits, etc). It was also a different time economically (open frontier, strong need for manual labor). Finally, the tensions it did cause resulted in a 40 year immigration moratorium from 1924-1964, which you’ll note coincided with the period of middle class white societies highest levels of cohesion and prosperity.

We shouldn’t assume people with IQs a standard deviation or two lower and strong clannish behavioral traits will be exactly like the Irish and Italian immigrants 120 years ago.

“Why not focus on loving them and refrain from peddling low-grade science in the name of racist attitudes?”

Blacks rioted and burned down parts of my city this summer, resulting in the imposition of martial law. People I know have been personally affected. And it wasn’t a pleasant place even before that.

I’ve been dealing with the negative impacts of affirmative action and disparate impact personally at various points of my life.

Now that I’m house hunting, I get to look forward to overpaying for the right to segregate by price so I can live in a safe community. Commuting all the way from the suburbs just to avoid being called a racist will be fun too. Hopefully my development doesn’t start accepting section 8 as part of the local governments drive to shove NAMs into white neighborhoods. This happened to my work friend and his house lost half his value and it became a violent neighborhood. Thanks for ruining that guys life to fight racism BTW, asshole.

Research shows that nearly all job growth over the last 15 years has gone completely to immigrants, so its a part of the jobs situation in my community as well. Despite taking many of the low level jobs and pushing those wages below subsistence (many of those jobs have to be subsidized by Medicaid, etc), high welfare usage by NAMs strains the budgets and services of the community.

In addition, since I believe in HBD, I believe the long term prosperity of my family and community is tied up with the average genetic fitness of the people I share my country with. I also think that, barring violence none of us want, immigration represents a permeant and irrevocable experiment. If your wrong, our children and children’s children on and on are going to have to pay the price. This isn’t some piece of legislation we can overturn in a decade if it doesn’t work out. Even prohibition was less of a policy risk then mass third world immigration.

This could go on and on, is there anything NAMs improve rather then degrade in my community? Ending immigration and ending racial agitation would do more for my community then I could possibly do on my own. It’s nice and all when I help someone fix their roof or pay for someones medical care, but it can’t solve the structural problems NAMs cause.

115 Nathan W February 24, 2016 at 2:18 am

““No one is denying biodiversity.”… Your denying right now in this thread”

Where did I say that? Quote me.

“I’m not going to debate you on the HBD evidence. ”

I dare you. Which evidence? Double dare. Nope. You know I’ll poke all sorts of holes into it, so you refuse to show your “evidence”.

“If “tit for tat” is true, what “tat” should be linked to …”

How about racist against African Americans leads to racism against people of European descent? But anyways, this isn’t exactly amenable to “tit for tat” analysis. And yes, I’m ignoring your disgustingly offensive conclusion to that sentence.

” They don’t believe in unlimited welfare to hostile permanent net takers on a scale that bankrupts society.”

“Unlimited welfare”? What’s unlimited about it? It’s crumbs, nothing more. “Hostile net takers”? The average African American is not hostile. What about hostile white supremacists, some of whom are also unemployed and benefitting from social assistance? “That bankrupts society” – what an absurd idea that welfare to African Americans is any sort of singular cause for American budgetary woes. You must be absolutely outraged about social security, which targets all groups equally, and which is a much higher burden on American fiscal balance than the share of overall welfare payments which benefit African Americans.

Ignoring ad hominems …

“It’s not irrational, its based on science ”

Citations please. Which science? Triple dare.

“policy makers need to be realistic about how the world works to make good policy”

Pray tell. How does the world work?

“It’s what I try to do in my life.”

I very much appreciate that you’ve got a soul. Some folks aligned with your other areas of thinking have some pretty horrible prescriptions for what to do about the down and out, even those among the down and out with more strongly related ancestry.

“its VERY obvious that elites and liberal strivers hate hate hate working class whites and can’t wait for them to just die already.”

Among the more absurd and incorrect views that you hold. However, yesterday someone called out a commenter for talking about “white trash”, which seemed quite commendable. Hate is not the right word. There are derogatory attitudes towards certain elements of the working class, in particular those who hold derogatory attitudes towards non-white groups. It would be better to consider them as uneducated, and refrain from the list of negative stereotypes that are perpetuated.

“If you really love your community you should oppose policies that hurt the people in your community.”

I guess I have a different sense of community than you, and am not very concerned about ethnic affiliations in considering “community”. “Community” is the people I live around, interact with, etc., not delineated by considerations of ancestry.

“We gave total equality of everyone a try and it failed”

No. Not even Stalin or Mao gave total equality a try. This is a strawman.

“The world we have is the world of equality as religion.”

No. Pure communism is not popular anywhere. However, in many places it is broadly deemed as desirable for everyone of equal ability to have an equal chance regardless of any group affiliation, and this includes efforts to promote achievements of non-privileged groups in education (in China, this leads to the existence of many scholarships directed towards non-Han groups who suffer from disadvantages such as having to go to school in their second language and lack of well-connected social networks).

“They learned to get along because they were all White Europeans Christians with roughly equal genetic traits”

Recall that it used to be folk knowledge among the British that Irish and Scots were inferior brutes, much as some people continue to believe with regard to various non-white groups.

“We shouldn’t assume people with IQs a standard deviation or two lower and strong clannish behavioral traits …”

a) please link to studies which purport to “prove” these one or two standard deviation differences. b) are you not demonstrating precisely these “clannish” attributes you criticize?

“Blacks rioted and burned down parts of my city this summer”

Cops shouldn’t kill unarmed black men. The reaction was entirely unacceptable, but at the same time the reaction can be understood.

“I’ve been dealing with the negative impacts of affirmative action”

Sorry that you didn’t get into the university that you wanted to attend. (or … what else could you be referring to?)

“local governments drive to shove NAMs into white neighborhoods. This happened to my work friend and his house lost half his value and it became a violent neighborhood.”

I don’t understand how one “shoves” non-whites into a neighbourhood. My understanding of the matter is that African Americans enjoy the same freedom of movement and property rights as all Americans. And anyways, wasn’t there a real estate bubble that popped? Might that have been relevant? He and you might be pointing fingers in the wrong direction.

” Despite taking many of the low level jobs and pushing those wages below subsistence (many of those jobs have to be subsidized by Medicaid, etc)”

Then advocate for a higher minimum wage if the minimum wage is below subsistence. Corrected for inflation, minimum wages remain at about the same levels as in the 1960s.

“Ending immigration and ending racial agitation would do more for my community then I could possibly do on my own.”

I don’t think that spreading opinions about how inferior they are is conducive to ending racial agitation. Au contraire.

116 anon February 24, 2016 at 6:24 am

Much shorter: I have IQ 135. “Biodiversity” means (in code) some guy with IQ 98 thinking he’s cool because he’s the same color as me.

It’s all about riding shirt-tails to self respect.

117 Nathan W February 24, 2016 at 8:12 am

“It’s all about riding shirt-tails to self respect.”

Honestly, that what it seems like to me for some of these guys. Who doesn’t like to read stuff that says “Hey man, you’re better than everyone!”.

See, when I travel in Africa and everyone can speak five languages, I have a hard time imagining that these people are dumb. Just not very educated.

118 asdf February 24, 2016 at 9:28 am

“What’s unlimited about it? It’s crumbs, nothing more.”

Having broken real estate markets and a broken education system are pretty damn important. So much of what we do as a society is to segregate by price. If we could just segregate that all goes away.

A lot of the welfare also comes in the form of healthcare costs. Most utilization of Medicaid, Obamacare, etc comes from various minority groups. This is especially true when you start digging into the numbers.

“I guess I have a different sense of community than you, and am not very concerned about ethnic affiliations in considering “community”. “Community” is the people I live around, interact with, etc., not delineated by considerations of ancestry.”

Translation: My community is fellow amoral strivers who will do anything to get ahead in life. Outside of my narrow social circle I view my neighbors as nothing more then detached raw material to fuel my own largely shallow ambitions. I cover this narcissism up by pretending I give a fuck about people on another continent, which justifies raping my own society for status and profit. Anti-racism is my get out of noblese oblige free card.

“No. Not even Stalin or Mao gave total equality a try. This is a straw man.”

Saying “communism was never really tried man” is pretty dated don’t you think. Save it for the college dorm room bull session.

“Recall that it used to be folk knowledge among the British that Irish and Scots were inferior brutes, much as some people continue to believe with regard to various non-white groups.”

They are. Irish have a few less IQ points then Anglos. It’s just that the difference is small enough it didn’t prove an insurmountable barrier. It’s different with NAMs, were the difference is much more vast (and often goes beyond just IQ).

“Sorry that you didn’t get into the university that you wanted to attend. (or … what else could you be referring to?)”

My charter school got sued to be shut down seven times because NAMs couldn’t pass the math exam to get in. They tried to shut down one of the best high schools in the country because RACISM, and everyone in my town that attended got harassed and my best friend couldn’t attend because they threatened to retaliate against his younger siblings. That’s just one example, but they go on.

“I don’t understand how one “shoves” non-whites into a neighbourhood. My understanding of the matter is that African Americans enjoy the same freedom of movement and property rights as all Americans.”

The rent is paid for by the government through section 8, its hardly a free market. Communities aren’t allowed to deny these new residents, they are often forced to rent to them by law when they don’t want to.

“Then advocate for a higher minimum wage if the minimum wage is below subsistence. Corrected for inflation, minimum wages remain at about the same levels as in the 1960s.”

You can’t legislate away supply and demand. If your flooded with peasants having a high minimum wage tends to push labor off-the-books. Those that can’t get jobs at the high min wage end up on welfare, which doesn’t really solve the problem.

“I don’t think that spreading opinions about how inferior they are is conducive to ending racial agitation. Au contraire.”

Giving into every single demand they make and telling them its all white peoples fault hasn’t had results. People respond to a firm hand, not apologies and weakness.

119 asdf February 24, 2016 at 9:44 am

“It’s all about riding shirt-tails to self respect.”

These people you hate built your infrastructure, make the trains run on time, stormed Normandy beach. They work a lot harder then you or me.

There is nothing particularly noble about pushing paper because you got born on the right side of the bell curve, regardless of the renumeration. I’m not sure where your hate for the working man comes from.

Most people do care about their community and want the people of their society to flourish. To build something together that is greater then our individual selfs.

This highlights once again how anti-racism isn’t about expanding love to all the people of the world, but about withdrawing love from fellow countrymen and using theoretical universal love as an excuse to pat oneself on the back.

120 Nathan W February 24, 2016 at 5:04 pm

You’re chasing shadows, mostly. I disrespect your disrespect and generally angry attitude, not your preference to be among similar people.

“Giving into every single demand they make and telling them its all white peoples fault hasn’t had results.”

Aside from affirmative action, what has anyone given in on? This notion that disenfranchised minorities are pulling all the strings in society, the cause of all ills against those in the working class who are white. Beyond absurd. At least when the leftists blame all the world’s problems on bankers and CEOs, they’re talking about blaming things on people who actually have power and influence in society, not some low-income minority group broadly tarred as drug dealers, thugs, welfare bums and the rest. Yeah, the welfare bums and drug dealers are pulling all the strings. And that’s why they’re low-level drug dealers and welfare bums. Do you know how dumb that sounds?

And the notion that I hate the working man is absurd. You’re chasing shadows again. How much of a hypocrite are you? You said it, and it’s fine. I said it, and it’s evidence that I broadly hate the working class. You could hardly epitomize hypocrisy more completely. I’m not going to beat my chest about how many thousands and thousands of hours I’ve spent in whichever forms of manual labour and low-level service jobs at however young of an age before I managed to get an education, but man, to think that I hate all those people I worked with for all those years? They taught me about dozens of countries around the world, where many of them came from, before I had a chance to go see much of it for myself. The “white trash” (at least Canadian ones) often have more common sense and folk wisdom than a good share of the people I met in uni, although some of them will never get a decent job because they don’t spell that good, speak eastside, and will wear their class on their foreheads for the rest of their life no matter what they try.

Chasing shadows, I say. Chasing shadows.

121 Nathan W February 24, 2016 at 5:07 pm

Just look at all the derogatory things you say about minorities, which you are perfectly OK with, and even the remotest hint (completely unsubstantiated, in fact) that I might hold the sliiightest view in the opposite direction, and you’re all up in arms as though I have a life-long hate on for your cherished underdog.

Think it through man. Treat people how you want to be treated. If you want respect from people, you’ve gotta offer them some modicum of respect. But I doubt you’re even able …

122 asdf February 24, 2016 at 5:52 pm

Those low level thugs and bums have robbed my friends and burned my city.

Blacks run my city politics and have turned it into a complete third world corruption zoo. They vote for people and policies specifically designed to make my life worse. They’ve actively been trying to destroy the schools I’ve attended.

They want to police my every thought and word, and to destroy my life if I step out of line on any of a growing list of grievances.

NAMs are the tool used by the powerful to keep power. When Hillary says that there is no point breaking up the big banks because, “would that solve racism?”, what the fuck do you think she’s doing? She’s using her “black firewall” to stave of Sanders attempts at reform. Hey, at least Bill was relatable and Obama gave them free cell phones, why should they vote for some white NERD! with some ideas about finance.

I treat people how they treat me. Like anyone else, I need to defend myself from aggression. NAMs want power and free stuff because they think whitey stole it. They obey no laws and no ethics in taking whatever they can through means of politics, physical violence, and deceit.

I don’t think whitey stole it. I think NAMs were just born with shitty genes and thats a shitty circumstance but its the way it is. Since you refuse to Google HBD and do your own research I can’t convince you of this.

123 JonFraz February 25, 2016 at 1:07 pm

Re: Most utilization of Medicaid, Obamacare, etc comes from various minority groups.

Unless your definition of “minority group” includes “low income people” as a group, the above is not true, a plurality of Medicaid enrollees are in fact white*. And as far as the ACA goes, its benefits are spread across the whole population as health insurance in general was reformed by the law. If you are referring specifically to the Medicaid expansion, then see what I have already stated.

* considering just the non-elderly population– include the non-elderly and a majority are white.

Re: So much of what we do as a society is to segregate by price. If we could just segregate that all goes away.

I have no idea what you mean by the above. As you note, we DO segregate– by price. Why is this problematic? And if you are talking about racial segregation then you are delusional if you think that would somehow eliminate price segregation, which is as old as pricing systems and most certainly did exist under Jim Crow and slavery too. But even if what you state is true, it is also wrong. I mean, we could solve a great many problems by the simple expedient of committing genocide against a certain fraction of the human race. We don’t because it’s wrong. Perhaps you have encountered the term “morality” before?

124 Nathan W February 26, 2016 at 12:34 am

HBD: “There is biodiversity THEREFORE non-whites are genetically inferior”.

Newsflash for non-retards: “Possible does not mean therefore true”. For someone with an IQ of 135, you should be able to grasp that with no difficulty.

And this idea that corruption in municipal politics is a special feature of minorities is pretty ridiculous as well.

Historically, Europeans stole quite a lot from quite a lot of people. This is a historical fact, and it takes a certain strength of character to admit it happened, without feeling guilty for things that you personally had no hand in doing, but to commit to a future where that does not happen. Minorities are not, as a general rule, pre-occupied with historical wrongs. Rather, they are concerned with the present.

125 Hrding February 23, 2016 at 11:13 pm

“I was an anti-racist libertarian once too”

-So was I.

126 Cliff February 24, 2016 at 12:04 am

PC is not a white middle class movement. It is driven by NAM and white upper class

127 Hazel Meade February 23, 2016 at 2:48 pm

7. In theory political correctness is just about being polite and sensitive. In practice, however, it is commonly used to suppress speech, no matter how sensitively phrased, that leftists don’t want to hear. It simply isn’t just a limit on what words you are allowed to use. It is a limit on what ideas you are allowed to express.

128 JWatts February 23, 2016 at 3:07 pm

+1, and I’ll add that a lot of the politically correct crowd aren’t polite. Nor are they particularly sensitive. They claim they are sensitive, but they tend to be selective about who to be sensitive towards.

129 anon February 23, 2016 at 3:32 pm

Correct. It’s a status game that people on the Left play to increase their own standing in their in-group. The status game has gotten out of control, there has been a backlash, pols like Trump have capitalized, and the Left has predictably decried the “lack of civility” in public discourse that they themselves have caused.

130 Nathan W February 23, 2016 at 7:42 pm

It’s not a status game. These people really think they are helping the cause by using the strategies they do. Consider how much of the tactics are applied in anonymous online fora, which is inconsistent with the view that people are playing status games.

131 Cliff February 24, 2016 at 12:09 am

It’s mainly about demonizing and destroying viewpoints they do not like and people who hold them (not civility or sensitivity). It’s also status but not more than other political views.

132 Nathan W February 24, 2016 at 12:24 am

Cliff – I agree that these are some unfortunate recent manifestations. I’ve run into several such situations myself, for utterly absurd reasons (I try to argue “I sympathize with the supposed objectives, but you guys have gone off the deep end and are being counterproductive as a result”, which generally leads to much online lynching and claims that I LOVE racism, HATE women, and other similarly retarded things.)

However, the excesses of the extremists should not be used as an excuse to … “do nothing”, as Kareem puts it. Consider how up in arms the white supremacists and racists get when anyone says anything critical of people of European descent for the fact of their ancestry/colour. Hypocrites, the whole lot of them. Other groups similarly do not like being disparaged for the fact of their ancestry/colour. Propagating negative stereotypes in highly disrespectful manners damages essentially innocent and competent people who have done no wrong, and that is wrong.

133 Cliff February 24, 2016 at 2:50 am

I do not know what you are referring to in your last paragraph. I agree people should not be disparaged based on their race/ancestry but at the same time I do not consider it disparaging to hold or express opinions on empirical matters. I do not generally hear people disparaged for their race/ancestry so that does not seem like a strong justification for the PC movement.

Mostly when people say negative things about European-Americans it is based on actions of their ancestors (generally very remote ancestors). I don’t know anything about the reaction of racists or white supremacists to criticism of their ancestors, but if the reaction is dismissal then I would agree with it, since actions taken by remote ancestors hundreds of years ago say nothing about people today.

134 Nathan W February 24, 2016 at 8:47 am

“I do not consider it disparaging to hold or express opinions on empirical matters”

There’s a huge difference between “blacks have low IQ” and “African Americans perform poorly on IQ tests.” The second of these refers to an empirical fact. If it’s OK to say the first thing, then what’s wrong with saying “white trash are imbeciles”? (I think they’re just poorly educated and unsophisticated.) But this last statement is utterly offensive to people who preoccupy themselves with white status, and that’s why I call it hypocrisy.

Also, the generalizations that blacks are all thugs, etc., isn’t fair to the vast vast majority who are not. Want to disparage gangsters for their violence and criminality? Well, they’re violent gangsters, no? Totally different from tarring an entire group for the actions of the few, which is entirely too common. But, then, if it’s OK to disparage gangsters without considering context, then what’s wrong with disparaging the unnecessary levels of violence meted out on the world by primarily white decision makers through American foreign policy, without considering context? I mean, aren’t they both basically engaged in turf wars?

135 A Definite Beta Guy February 23, 2016 at 7:11 pm

Indeed, it is not sensitive to continually call someone a “shitlord.”

136 JWatts February 23, 2016 at 8:19 pm

Oh, but they’ll certainly claim they are sensitive. Because they are sensitive to the groups that matter. But shitlords are shitlords so sensitivity is not called for. QED.

137 Craig February 24, 2016 at 1:44 pm

what’s wrong with saying “white trash are imbeciles”?

It’s a racial/ethnic slur for one, akin to saying “niggers are imbeciles.” And the Kike who runs this board will keep your ethnic slur up for posterity, and delete mine as hate speech.

138 MOFO February 23, 2016 at 2:57 pm

The methodology in #3 strikes me as unserious. Charting people based on how many different wikipedia languages they have a bio in? They are simply modeling the tastes of a small handful of wikipedia editors. If someone chooses to translate Chuck Norris’ bio into polish, it does not mean that he more globally known than Ronald Regan, just that someone who speaks polish decided to write a bio of him in the Polish wikipedia.

139 mkt42 February 25, 2016 at 1:35 am

Yup. E.g. their list of the most known economists from 1700-2010 has a good top 10, but #11 is Hjalmar Schacht, #13 is Philip Kotler, and #16 Henri Fayol. Ahead of people such as Say, Michael Porter, Leontief, Samuelson, Herbert Simon, Galbraith, etc. Interestingly, they list Alexander Hamilton as an economist, #26.
http://pantheon.media.mit.edu/rankings/people/all/ECONOMIST/1700/2010/H15

140 Rich Berger February 23, 2016 at 3:11 pm

7. First touting Brooks eulogy for Obama and now this. What happened to Professor Cowen?

141 anon February 23, 2016 at 3:36 pm

It’s good for blog readership and Tyler/GMU’s brand to be associated with a famous NBA player. It’s pretty cool to be referenced in ESPN articles. I don’t say I blame him.

142 anon February 23, 2016 at 3:38 pm

Maybe he’s tired of the racist infestation.

143 JWatts February 23, 2016 at 4:20 pm

Brooks eulogy was, IMO, much worse than Kareem’s article. And Kareem’s previous article on The Donald made some pretty good points.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/09/02/kareem-abdul-jabbar-this-is-the-difference-between-donald-trump-and-bernie-sanders/

144 Floccina February 23, 2016 at 4:53 pm

#7 He may be right but if he is, no one should ever call for a conversation on race. Of course a national conversation on race is probably a very bad idea. Many could be hurt by national conversation on race. In 50 years or so there will probably not be distinct racial lines. Just a little more mixing and the mixed middle will be pretty big. Just wait for that with much conversation.

145 JWatts February 23, 2016 at 5:01 pm

“In 50 years or so there will probably not be distinct racial lines.”

Oh probably, but we might well be hearing calls for a national conversation on species as the sentient computers want to discuss the topic of low IQ humans and their dysfunctional culture. “Should humans be allowed to drive and vote? Just look at the carnage to sentient auto-pilots, native wild life and other humans their appallingly slow reactions and lack of concentration is causing.”

146 Nathan W February 23, 2016 at 7:48 pm

Lol. There’s a good xkcd comic on a related theme: http://xkcd.com/1626/

147 JWatts February 23, 2016 at 8:27 pm

Yes, it’s Terminator’s Judgement Day interpreted correctly. But as is almost always the case, it would make for a very poor and short movie.

148 Keith February 23, 2016 at 6:18 pm

History says that racial mixing leads to more races not fewer. Look up quadroon, quarteron, octoroon and quintroon etc.

149 Nathan W February 24, 2016 at 12:35 am

How does defining half breeds, quarter breeds, etc., as separate “races” imply something negative? Man, this is straight out of the 19th century. They didn’t even know what DNA was then.

150 Donald Pretari February 23, 2016 at 5:43 pm

#6…I read the report. I thought the section on rent seeking, liscening, patents, and lack of anti-trust enforcement was good. The section on inequality described the seriousness of the problem without advancing major initiatives, which I agree with since major national initiatives would be both too costly and too intrusive. It is a very middle of the road document.

#1 and #3 are connected through Rick Rubin, the producer of Slayer, among others, who is the fourth most famous producer on the Pantheon lists.

151 Donald Pretari February 23, 2016 at 6:35 pm

Someone earlier mentioned Charles Murray. I’m a fan of Charles Murray. In fact, we hold very similar ideas about the social safety net. But then, I’ve read or listened to many interviews of Charles Murray, and read most of his books. Consequently, I often find that his views are misrepresented, although I’m not going to bother correcting such people.

When people post on this blog, however, I sometimes do find comments racist, but I’m not going to say so because I don’t know the person making the comment, and hesitate to accuse people of racism that I do not know. I don’t even know who the person is or whether they’ve even expressing their actual views most of the time.

My point is that, on some issues, I need to look the person in the eye, or have some way to judge their sincerity. Hence, simply reading posts doesn’t suffice for commenting on such issues, in my view.

152 JWatts February 23, 2016 at 8:39 pm

Yes, that’s my thoughts. It’s hard to determine someone’s motive through this form of communication and motive interpretation makes for poor arguments in any case. If you need a foil to make your argument strong, you’ve failed.

Of course Charles Murray gets accused of poor science and racism all the time, by people who have clearly never read his work. Or even can tell you what it’s about.

153 prior_test1 February 24, 2016 at 5:23 am

This link to Juvenile Corrections and the Chronic Delinquent provides a lot of insight into Murray and his views, along with their influence in the U.S. – https://www.evernote.com/shard/s1/sh/ca77d486-984b-44d3-94ea-66c81ba3973e/1f71dae7472ed9af02d2c6411fcaef73

But hey, the cost of a generation of mass incarceration is undoubtedly the price to keep freedom, justice and the American Way meaning what it meant when Murray was young, and doing his best to keep Communists from our shores.

Pretty much the only people who misrepresent Murray consistently are his supporters – with Andrew Sullivan being an extremely clear example of that. ‘A million years ago, when the internet was just a gleam in Tina Brown’s eye, Andrew Sullivan edited The New Republic, which was a Serious Magazine that had no time for your Liberal P.C. Dogma, such as “Race Is an Arbitrary and Unscientific Concept” or “Intelligence Is a Difficult Thing to Define, Let Alone Measure.” As such, Sullivan gave a cover story to The Bell Curve, a horrendous piece of shoddy sociology about how blacks are not as smart as whites, and neither are as smart as The Chinaman; besides the general philosophical problems with writing a book-length study of the intersection between two variable, difficult-to-define, and scientifically problematic concepts, it was methodologically unsound and its data cherry-picked from a variety of unsavory sources.

It’s looked back upon by most people as a profoundly embarrassing episode, even for The New Republic, which thrives on saying silly shit, and yet, Sullivan, who writes as though literally nothing has been written on the subject since, continues to insist on defending not just The Bell Curve but a general investigation into “intelligence.” Weirdly, “intelligence,” in his case, always seems to mean “the ways that black people are stupid,” but I’m sure that’s just a coincidence? He’s spent the last week telling anyone who will listen that he is totally not a racist, but, look, he’s just saying, scientifically, black people are stupider.’ http://gawker.com/5863453/a-readers-guide-to-andrew-sullivans-defense-of-race-science

154 Roberto February 23, 2016 at 8:23 pm

World Music is a term created by marketers to promote sales of music performed by African musicians (of course it isn’t limited to African musicians anymore).

155 Donald Pretari February 24, 2016 at 12:24 pm

I’ll try this once , although I’ve posted on this topic many times. You Can improve IQs and poor people’s lives. Get that. You can. It’s just that making significant progress quickly would be incredibly expensive and much more intrusive into people’s lives than we can stomach. It’s also politically impossible, and, for me, poltics is the art of the possible.

What can we do? Firstly, have some sort of guaranteed income. Secondly, we should try making things better with the funds we can actually get, but we should understand that progress will be slow. Accordingly, we should take a pragmatic attitude towards programs by being experimental and directing funds over time towards programs that work better than others.

There are still issues of racism and inequality to address, of course, but this outline has to do with programs directed towards individual improvement. I think this is a realistic view of what we can do on this front, and which I don’t consider advocating nothing.

156 Nathan W February 24, 2016 at 5:11 pm

I suggest that a guaranteed income should be tied to volunteer requirements for the able bodied, in part to ensure that they’re vaguely contributing something and in part to ensure that they’re out there doing stuff, networking, meeting people, getting experience, and all that. 10 hours a week anywhere you want sort of thing.

157 youtube.com March 2, 2016 at 9:13 pm

Hi there! I could have sworn I’ve visited this web site before but after looking at
some of the posts I realized it’s new to me. Nonetheless, I’m certainly
pleased I discovered it and I’ll be book-marking it and
checking back frequently!

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: