-->
@secularmerlin
...only the qualification that all humans being afforded "rights" would be preferable to the alternative.
Do you have any thoughts regarding the practical MECHANISM that would necessarily insure these afforded "rights"?
Scientific Racism
Posts
Total:
111
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm afraid that rights are mostly granted by mob democracy. A man's right to life and liberty can be taken away by any group larger, better armed and/or better organized than his. The mechanism is and always has been concerned citizens fighting against the status quo for the betterment of the status quo.
-->
@secularmerlin
I'm afraid that rights are mostly granted by mob democracy. A man's right to life and liberty can be taken away by any group larger, better armed and/or better organized than his. The mechanism is and always has been concerned citizens fighting against the status quo for the betterment of the status quo.
Well stated.
With this raciest sience thing .
You. well We. Can make a ummmmm, opposite racism claim. So that's racist racist.
It counteracts.
Just Stats. And they change sooooooo.
But being raciest about anything science like, plays 2ND fiddle. It's way more important for the claim to be the truth. Science.
No I didn't say that right.
We can state a Stat showing ummmmm for and against.
So Raciest Stats.
Actually I have several left so I'm going to use a pass.
" PASS "
Are Companies that make ( BANDAIDS ) raciest?
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
But being raciest about anything science like, plays 2ND fiddle. It's way more important for the claim to be the truth. Science.
SCIENCE =/= TRUTH
SCIENCE =/= OBJECTIVE
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Are Companies that make ( BANDAIDS ) raciest?
Please make your definition of "raciest" EXPLICIT.
(IFF) "raciest" means someone (or something) "filled with hate based on skin-tone" (THEN) a psychopathic corporation seeking to maximize profits at all costs is not "filled with hate based on skin-tone" and is (THERFORE) NOT "raciest" ("active-racism").
HOwEveR,
(IFF) "raciest" means someone (or something) that "implicitly and unintentionally shows preferential treatment based on skin-tone" (THEN) a psychopathic corporation (or government or other system or organization) that neglects to consider (and mitigate) whether or not their products and or services disproportionately help people of certain skin-tones over people of other skin-tones is (THEREFORE) "raciest" ("passive-racism").
-->
@3RU7AL
(IFF) "raciest" means someone (or something) "filled with hate based on skin-tone" (THEN) a psychopathic corporation seeking to maximize profits at all costs is not "filled with hate based on skin-tone" and is (THERFORE) NOT "raciest" ("active-racism").HOwEveR,(IFF) "raciest" means someone (or something) that "implicitly and unintentionally shows preferential treatment based on skin-tone" (THEN) a psychopathic corporation (or government or other system or organization) that neglects to consider (and mitigate) whether or not their products and or services disproportionately help people of certain skin-tones over people of other skin-tones is (THEREFORE) "raciest" ("passive-racism").
Well stated.
9 days later
-->
@secularmerlin
I would say that at the very least he is misunderstanding why IQ tests are on average higher for some demographics than others (social disadvantage due to systemic racism and the resulting gap in education resources seems at least as likely an explanation as genetics) and also that he is placing too much importance on the tests in general. I am still not prepared to personally call him racist just incorrect.
Okay. I'm glad that you take a more stable view (in the context of science-opinion).
Of course we're not under pressure to comply to public demands.
The Gene's which control melatonin levels are unconnected with those that control intelligence and in America at least there has been interbreeding between all demographics such that the genetics that effect one demographic would effect all demographics.
But to be more clear, whatever error the doctor was in is not relevant to the issue of political pressure, and it's obvious compromise.
My focus is on the fact that the voice of the scientific community seems to have an honesty issue. That being the case, I think it's just too easily/readily being overlooked. Written off as unimportant.
-->
@3RU7AL
The reality is, if a scientist presents a theory that causes racial offense, whoever the voice for the scientific community has to take political action. The accusers are not basingtheir accusation on science, but on political correctness.YES. AND "THE LAW" IS CODIFIED MOB RULE.What is your prescription?(IFF) it is "illegal" to fire someone for their religious beliefs (or lack of religious beliefs) (THEN) it should also be "illegal" to fire someone for their (other) "idiotic" beliefs.But this DOUBLE-EDGED-SWORD cuts both ways.(IFF) you CAN fire someone for their religious beliefs (or lack of religious beliefs) (THEN) you CAN fire someone for their (other) "idiotic" beliefs.
I'm not sure what you're getting at.
These are conflicting scenarios (I would think anyway), but what relationship do they have with the incident in question concerning James Watson's claim?
-->
@RoderickSpode
I'm not sure what you're getting at.
You seem to be upset that this person was ostracized for their (unpopular) opinion (hypothesis).
The fact of the matter is that due to the fickle nature of human social hierarchies, any person can be ostracized at any time for any "reason".
-->
@3RU7AL
Interesting that it was unconscious "self segregating" and that these groups hardly communicated at all.
-->
@Stephen
Perhaps that's a major advantage of anonymous communication.
-->
@RoderickSpode
But to be more clear, whatever error the doctor was in is not relevant to the issue of political pressure, and it's obvious compromise.
I'm not sure what the "obvious compromise" is the real issue is not so much any error or even this one scientist's opinion or racism but rather the possibility that some racist(s) might take these flawed conclusions and use them to justify some unjust prejudice. Beliefs inform actions.
18 days later
-->
@secularmerlin
I'm not sure what the "obvious compromise" is the real issue is not so much any error or even this one scientist's opinion or racism but rather the possibility that some racist(s) might take these flawed conclusions and use them to justify some unjust prejudice. Beliefs inform actions.
The compromise is the conclusion that Watson's hypothesis is based on personal racism.
How do you/they know he wasn't sincere, no matter how off he was, about his hypothesis?
-->
@RoderickSpode
The compromise is the conclusion that Watson's hypothesis is based on personal racism.How do you/they know he wasn't sincere, no matter how off he was, about his hypothesis?
Irrelevant to the situation if he is doing harm. The most basic goal of a punishment is to change behavior. If his behavior (or hypothesis) causes harm and being ostracized prevents or works against that harm then it is hard to argue against the punishment.
-->
@secularmerlin
Irrelevant to the situation if he is doing harm. The most basic goal of a punishment is to change behavior. If his behavior (or hypothesis) causes harm and being ostracized prevents or works against that harm then it is hard to argue against the punishment.
You threw in a couple of ifs in there. Apparently you're not sure if there was any harm. What harm would you possibly be referring to? Since most public proclamations of any kind produce offenses, are you differentiating the terms harm and offense?
You mingled behavior and (in parenthesis) hypothesis in the same sentence. Are you implying they are one and the same?
This is at least partly what I mean by compromise. Something being hard to argue against is no excuse. It's a special plea for emotional reaction.
In an earlier post you acknowledged that his hypothesis wouldn't necessitate him being a racist. Are you saying that his action justifies a potential false accusation?
-->
@RoderickSpode
Well what is the purpose of his hypothesis being disavowed and other scientists dismissing it as racist drivel? Is the purpose only to hurt the man or is it an attempt to limit the damage his hypothesis could potentially do to minorities?
-->
@secularmerlin
Well what is the purpose of his hypothesis being disavowed and other scientists dismissing it as racist drivel? Is the purpose only to hurt the man or is it an attempt to limit the damage his hypothesis could potentially do to minorities?
Good question.
I would suggest ultimately neither.
This is the ultimate reason for the ostracizing.
Public outcry over these remarks prompted Cold Spring to ask for his resignation.
I think it's easy to assume the science community is akin to the hyper-humanitarian scientists we see in those old 50's sci-fi movies. They never have any self-interest, arguing over which one will get to be the movie's hero and risk their lives in a rescue attempt, etc.
This is a fantasy. The science community is not any different, except in topic/subject, than any other vocational community. They're subject to public approval.
The truth seems to be that the majority will never change racist circumstances without a public outcry, starting/especially with the minority victim. During the U.S. racial segregation period, white majority America still considered ourselves humanitarians. The segregation was evidently considered normal by the majority. It didn't impede our view as saviors of the world. It's very possible that had their not been a Civil Rights Movement, segregation might still exist today (to the magnitude of pre-CRM segregation). If minorities were content with lower status and treatment, the white majority would remain satisfied as well.
More recently, while the black stereo-types in movies have been removed (although replaced with exploitation stereo-types), America fully accepted the stereo-typing of Asians. There's been recent improvement of Asian depictions in movies. Why? Because of Asian empowerment groups challengeing our media.
What doesn't seem to happen is White majority in western nations volunteering to remove racist manifestations on our own. Do you think that without the public outcry, the science community is so humanitarian-focused as to demand justice for peoples who accept injustice upon themselves?
Basically, what we see here is "jumping on the bandwagon".
36 days later