The Refuge of the Toads

[Billie from Ockham]

If racism is prejudice of someone based on their racial group...

We need to keep distinct the mean differences between races from the application of these beliefs ... even when justified ... to specific people. The racial differences in IQ (which is not a very useful measure, but at least we have lots of data) are responsible for something like 5% of the total variance. So, while it is true that there is differences in the means, the ability to determine the race of a person from their IQ is darn close to chance and the role played by race in determining the IQ of a specific person is very small. Pre- and post-natal nutrition outweighs race by something like 3:1 and child-rearing practices outweigh race by even more.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Anyone who believes blacks are genetically inferior to whites because of genetics is a racist. The end

The only quibble that I have with the above is the use of word "inferior." If it had been written: "Anyone who believes blacks are genetically different from whites because of genetics is a racist," then I'd be in complete agreement, as it's pretty much a meaningless tautology.

Blacks are genetically different from whites in lots of ways. Melanin production, the most obvious, is definitely genetic, and definitely provides a fitness advantage depending on environment. Such an admission only gets labeled 'racist' when intelligence is the putative genetic trait being discussed.

I am not ready to start down the road of making judgements as to what is better or worse, as there is rarely a case of an attribute always being "better" or more adaptive. Therefore, I don't include ideas like "inferior" or "superior" in my definition of racism.

In general, cognitive ability in animals can provide a decided fitness advantage, but comes with associated costs. A reelly smart sea slug won't gain any edge, while a really dumb squirrel will starve.

In humans, though, greater intelligence is considered 'better'. Interesting how those SJWs who go apoplectic over the slightest hint that blacks might tend to have slightly lower intelligence, have no trouble mocking the stupidity of "inbred rednecks" like Commie.

To me, racism is the belief that whatever causes a person to be a member of a given race also causes that person to be different from members of other races in at least one other way. In other words, it's the belief that the races are different in ways other than what defines race. There's nothing wrong with being racist. The only mistake that one can make is jumping to the conclusion that an observable mean difference between races is due to genetics, when it could easily be due to something else.

Yes. What's perceived as raw cognitive ability with a genetic etiology, could actually be a cultural behavior (software vs. hardware.)

What's racist is to assume every member of a given race you meet possesses all the traits that members only tend to have. Both my smartest employee ever and my dumbest were black.

From what I've seen, (abhorrence of) the idea that the races are different in ways other than what defines race is what motivates a lot of the anti-evo-psych crowd. They don't want the door to be open even a crack to this possibility, as they know where it might lead. So anything that could support the idea that the races are different is to be stopped ... by any means possible.

Growing up, I was indoctrinated with the meme that 'everything is beautiful in its own way' and that all cultures are equal in their different-ness. You could readily point out positive attributes that a certain racial/ethnic group displayed -- unabashed stereotyping, btw -- but never any negatives.

But I also see another subtext motivation for SJWs, one that PZ has so often expressed. They have a pathological need for all differences of value among people to be completely random, so that their personal shortcomings can be dismissed as irrelevant. That way, no one has to achieve or produce or accomplish -- you just declare yourself an 'artist' or a 'writer' or a 'science commentator' and you get handed money. There's something deeply psychological and bizarre going on, but I only can vaguely make it out at this point.

[Kirbmarc]

Individuals are not simply avatars of their groups. That should really be all you need to say.

This is another case of group-obsessed SJW moralists protesting too much. It's very easy for their worldview to be perverted into a racist system because they're already halfway there or more.

This is also true, individuals should judged on their merits. Group prejudices exist and don't come from nowhere, but they shouldn't trump individuality. On an individual level it's better to check your prejudices (positive or negative) against the reality of the situation than to let your prejudices completely cloud your judgement. We're all biased to a certain degree but we can't and shouldn't be completely controlled by our biases.

However people also observe trends in society and try to understand what causes them. If those trends seem to affect some groups disproportionally, why is that so? What could be done to deal with the eventual damage caused by those trends? Those are hard questions to answer. For example data shows that "black people" tend be more likely to commit crimes, get prison sentences and have trouble finding gainful employment than "white people" in the US.

Why is that so? Does racism play a significant role in black poverty and crime, or are black poverty and crime the consequences of other factors (sociological, economical, psychological, biological, etc.)? Can better policies change this situation in a significant way?

All of these questions are important ones and require a focus on the issues with "race" in the US. A honest debate is necessary to get meaningful answers to those questions, but the topic is very politically charged and it's hard to have a honest debate.

[Kirbmarc]

If racism is prejudice of someone based on their racial group...

We need to keep distinct the mean differences between races from the application of these beliefs ... even when justified ... to specific people. The racial differences in IQ (which is not a very useful measure, but at least we have lots of data) are responsible for something like 5% of the total variance. So, while it is true that there is differences in the means, the ability to determine the race of a person from their IQ is darn close to chance and the role played by race in determining the IQ of a specific person is very small. Pre- and post-natal nutrition outweighs race by something like 3:1 and child-rearing practices outweigh race by even more.

This is also true. Again, a honest discourse on the topics of ethnicity, of nurture vs. nature, on environmental vs. genetic influences is necessary to understand which policies might have a certain effect and which might not.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

The Irish are alcoholics.

I'm not sure if this is for genetic or cultural reasons. It may be neither, or a combination of both.

The statement could also be hyperbole.

Does holding this opinion make me a racist?

Stated as such, it's prejudiced and an ethnic slur. (Don't think the Irish qualify as a 'race'.)

OTOH, saying, "the Irish people have historically experienced a significant amount of alcoholism" is an accurate statement of fact, and should be uncontroversial. And that endemic alcoholism can be attributed to poverty and culture.

Now, Asians, Ashkenazi Jews, and American Indians are genetically less able to process alcohol. Which makes them rude party guests, promiscuous, and trouble-makers, respectively. ;)

[jet_lagg]

I still don't like this direction of relegating the word racist to some value neutral role, "justified racism", "unjustified racism". The word should have teeth, because it describes something so ugly. In this, I agree with the SJWs. If you are being racist, that's bad and you should feel bad.

Many people believe that being an atheist is inherently bad. Why are you walking straight into this with your statements about racism?

To me, the "bad" part of racism is when you take race into account when it is irrelevant. The same for sexism. I say this because I believe that the races and the sexes are different, but these differences do not extend to every aspect of life. But, again, the unwarranted extension of race and sex to areas where they are irrelevant is not the fault of the belief that the races and sexes are different. It's a user error.

Because of the way racist is used in common parlance. It's a handy way to keep people behaving ethically, if, and only if, it maintains its teeth. Sure, if we drill down into the concept any further we can arrive at what you're saying, but the majority of people are never going to develop anything beyond the basic heuristic of "something gets labelled [x] and [x] is bad, so I need to avoid doing it and shame anyone who does". I want the words to maintain their stigma, but be applied more precisely, whereas it sounds like others want to have the words lose their stigma and have a conversation about why the stigma existed in the first place. Maybe then inventing more precise terms which could themselves carry stigma? Which admittedly isn't a bad idea. I just like mine better.

[Billie from Ockham]

However people also observe trends in society and try to understand what causes them. If those trends seem to affect some groups disproportionally, why is that so? What could be done to deal with the eventual damage caused by those trends? Those are hard questions to answer. For example data shows that "black people" tend be more likely to commit crimes, get prison sentences and have trouble finding gainful employment than "white people" in the US.

Why is that so? Does racism play a significant role in black poverty and crime, or are black poverty and crime the consequences of other factors (sociological, economical, psychological, biological, etc.)? Can better policies change this situation in a significant way?

FYI, if you want to engage someone like me in this kind of conversation, it behooves you to not frame it in the way that you did. By opening with "does racism play a significant role..." and then bringing in everything else later (separated by an "or" which will often be seen as an exclusive OR), you are setting this up in a way that doesn't make me believe that this is going to be an open and honest discussion. At a minimum, I'd suspect that your Bayesian priors are such that a certain idea ... namely, racism in the way that you use the word ... is being given a head-start.

In contrast, if you start with a observable phenomenon (e.g., "blacks males are over-represented in prison") and then ask what the predictors of this might be and which of these predictors is likely to be causal, then I'm much more interested.

[Kirbmarc]

Yes. What's perceived as raw cognitive ability with a genetic etiology, could actually be a cultural behavior (software vs. hardware.)

It's also possible that both features might be present: a slight genetic difference might be amplified through culture (and identity politics).

What's racist is to assume every member of a given race you meet possesses all the traits that members only tend to have. Both my smartest employee ever and my dumbest were black.

This means that identity politics are also racist, since they assume that people who explicitly don't possess certain traits (African Americans who prefer conservative politics to progressive ones, for example) should possess those traits or are otherwise not "really" part of that group ("race traitors").

To make an example, when the Horde attacked Jamila Bey for being sympathetic to some ideas of the Republican party they might have been motivated by the assumption that "all African Americans should abhor the Republicans", which is a racist assumption.

But I also see another subtext motivation for SJWs, one that PZ has so often expressed. They have a pathological need for all differences of value among people to be completely random, so that their personal shortcomings can be dismissed as irrelevant. That way, no one has to achieve or produce or accomplish -- you just declare yourself an 'artist' or a 'writer' or a 'science commentator' and you get handed money. There's something deeply psychological and bizarre going on, but I only can vaguely make it out at this point.

Some people might believe that differences are a social construct of the Patriarchy, so talent and success are also a social construct of the Patriarchy and assigned through bigoted means. They want to abolish those bigoted means so they can be rewarded just for being who they are and saying what they want (as long as they're not bigoted).

It seems to me that many (but not all) SJWs don't want to give better chances to talented people of all different backgrounds to succeed, but reward or punish people according to their "inner goodness" (i.e. their ethnic/social group and/or their ideological purity). For example a writer should successful regardless of the quality of their writing, but according to their ethnic/social background and the ideological content of their writing.

This ideology is probably very attractive for some people who, for one reason or another, feel like society owes them and that it's only the Patriarchy's fault if they weren't as successful as they wanted. In PZ' case this could be because his efforts to become a major figure first in biology, then in the Atheism/Skeptic movement haven't been very successful and he might blame other biologists, or "dudebro atheists" like Dawkins or Harris for his lack of success. But this is armchair psychology so it's probably bunk and shouldn't be taken too seriously.

[MarcusAu]

Well, I've had my epiphany for the day.

It's impossible to be racist against whites - not because Racism = Prejudice + Power - but because 'white' as a racial group has an ambiguous definition.

Also, without a clear concept of how to define race sociologically or scientifically - it is not possible to be racist. You have to know what it is you are hating before you can properly hate it.

As valid an argument against education (or perhaps in favour of Dadaist/Pomo education) as I have ever heard.

[feathers]

I have plenty to say about bike exams.

No taker?

No, *you* take them. My bike doesn't need an exam.

[Billie from Ockham]

Because of the way racist is used in common parlance. It's a handy way to keep people behaving ethically, if, and only if, it maintains its teeth. Sure, if we drill down into the concept any further we can arrive at what you're saying, but the majority of people are never going to develop anything beyond the basic heuristic of "something gets labelled [x] and [x] is bad, so I need to avoid doing it and shame anyone who does". I want the words to maintain their stigma, but be applied more precisely, whereas it sounds like others want to have the words lose their stigma and have a conversation about why the stigma existed in the first place. Maybe then inventing more precise terms which could themselves carry stigma? Which admittedly isn't a bad idea. I just like mine better.

Let me be blunt.

If you believe that the idea that the different races differ in ways other than those that define race should "maintain" its current negative "stigma" (which I agree that it has), then you are part of the problem with open and honest discussions about race. It does not matter if you are trying to restrict the negative stigma to only some of the differences between races, because then you're just begging for a discussion about which attributes are better, which cannot be answered objectively. Even worse, you appear to be saying that believing and/or knowing and/or stating some facts is morally good while believing and/or knowing and/or stating other facts is bad. I ain't going within a mile of that sort of thinking.

[Kirbmarc]

FYI, if you want to engage someone like me in this kind of conversation, it behooves you to not frame it in the way that you did. By opening with "does racism play a significant role..." and then bringing in everything else later (separated by an "or" which will often be seen as an exclusive OR), you are setting this up in a way that doesn't make me believe that this is going to be an open and honest discussion. At a minimum, I'd suspect that your Bayesian priors are such that a certain idea ... namely, racism in the way that you use the word ... is being given a head-start.

In contrast, if you start with a observable phenomenon (e.g., "blacks males are over-represented in prison") and then ask what the predictors of this might be and which of these predictors is likely to be causal, then I'm much more interested.

Very true. I framed the conversation in this way because I was starting from the predominant cultural assumptions of the SJWs, but it does show an in-built bias in favor of the "racism" explanation.

As you say the conversation should start with the observable phenomenon and then wonder about the eventual predictors and causes of the phenomenon itself. This is hard to do in a context where politics play a significant role, though, and this is why SJWs are confusing things and making the discourse harder to have.

The best way to frame the discussion is to keep it simple and keep assumptions to a minimum: "Black males are over-represented in prison. Why?"

[VickyCaramel]

I came across this article the other day that seems relevant to Kirbmarc and Vicky's discussion.

http://quillette.com/2016/06/23/on-the- ... of-racism/

The conclusion is, "Race exists, but racism does not have to."

Considering what I know about human nature, I don't think I can agree with this conclusion. We prejudge, discriminate, pigeon-hole, form ingroups and outgroups... this isn't a bug so much as a feature. That's not to say it can't be overcome, but it will always be an obstacle to be overcome.

I agree with you on this point, however I don't think that the article is naively convinced that racism can be completely overcome, or that people will at some point stop to pigeon-hole or form in-groups and out-groups. The way I see it the article is about explaining that just because some differences between races/ethnicities exist then this doesn't necessarily mean that we should treat people only according to the averages of their ethnic group.

The discussion about IQ is just a shorthand, if it were just about that we wouldn't have so much of a problem. There are plenty of places in the workforce for people who can't or won't think, regardless of their colour.
What race realists are really concerned about crime and morality.

In this respect it's probably even harder to understand the genetic or environmental origin of crime, or how much our moral behavior is shaped by genetics and how much by the environment. Is criminal history of parents evidence of a genetic origin of crime or do criminal parents teach their children how to be criminals?

Furthermore people associate certain traits with morality or immorality according to their moral beliefs: for example religious people see atheism as immoral and prohibitionists see drug dealing not just as a crime but as a moral failure. Finding an objective definition of "morality" so that it can be tested for its genetic or environmental seems like a very hard task to me.

Damn straight!

I am reminded of Jane Elliot's eye colour experiments. I can't see things going well, at least not for coloured folk.

[feathers]

Bicycle = velocipede

Dutch has the unique fiets. Although a relatively new word, we have no idea where it comes from.

Moped = ?

Dutch brommer (because it, like, broomms), but moped is closer to 'muppet' which probably refers to the drivers.

[MarcusAu]

I think some are too quick to give up on the idea of racial supremacy

[feathers]

Turns out the person upstairs is very nice and has taken care of all the details for insurance.

Still, I suspect jihad through taqiyya... because why not?

If he commits jihad through tequila that ain't so bad.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

That Spidey kid in Civil war is great. The Peter Parker I pictured as a child.

[MarcusAu]

Was he a Roundhead or a Cavalier?


(or a Unionist or Confederate - for those geographically and culturally displaced).

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

Was he a Roundhead or a Cavalier?


(or a Unionist or Confederate - for those geographically and culturally displaced).

[Billie from Ockham]

The best way to frame the discussion is to keep it simple and keep assumptions to a minimum: "Black males are over-represented in prison. Why?"

Yep. And, if you're curious, the best answer that we have to date is: because black males are more likely to have been raised by a single, unemployed, opposite-sex parent who had several other children of about the same age. These are also the best predictors for white males committing violent crimes ... it's just that the odds of a white male being raised by a single, unemployed, opposite-sex parent with a bunch of other kids isn't as high as that for black males.

Warning: saying what I just said ... even though it does not blame the over-representation of black males in prison on race ... will usually evoke even louder accusations of racism against you. Because reasons. At best, you'll be given a few examples of black males who were raised by single unemployed mothers-of-many as a "disproof" and will then have to explain what an anecdote is.

[Kirbmarc]

Because of the way racist is used in common parlance. It's a handy way to keep people behaving ethically, if, and only if, it maintains its teeth. Sure, if we drill down into the concept any further we can arrive at what you're saying, but the majority of people are never going to develop anything beyond the basic heuristic of "something gets labelled [x] and [x] is bad, so I need to avoid doing it and shame anyone who does". I want the words to maintain their stigma, but be applied more precisely, whereas it sounds like others want to have the words lose their stigma and have a conversation about why the stigma existed in the first place. Maybe then inventing more precise terms which could themselves carry stigma? Which admittedly isn't a bad idea. I just like mine better.

Interestingly enough this might explain why religions are so socially successful: they're a handy way to keep people behaving in a certain way which is beneficial to a specific kind of society. "God hates [x]" is a useful shorthand for "something gets labelled [x] and [x] is bad, so I need to avoid doing it and shame anyone who does", since God is assumed to be the source of morality and of an eventual reward or punishment after death. If you want to change society you only need to change [x]. If you want to keep society as it is you keep [x] as it is.

This is done by consulting the Holy Book(s) and the traditional wisdom and coming up with different interpretations. The interpreters of the Holy Book and of the traditional wisdom are therefore invested with a huge amount of power, and society is related to their role and their interpretation of the Holy Book.

However, in a non-religious setting, where is no ultimate source of morality, this means that [x] should carefully defined in order to avoid the word losing its edge. The more [x] applies to a larger set of actions and ideas the more likely are people to question whether [x] is actually so bad: the more likely you are going to be punished exactly as severely for a different range of actions and ideas, the less are you to care about behaving ethically. You might as well get hung for a sheep as for a lamb.

The will of a supernatural, omniscient, omnipotent god is unquestionable and the only way to disobey it is either deny the existence of such a god or attack the interpreters of its will. The will of other humans is more easy to question: you just need to think they're fallible and wrong, which isn't too hard.

In the context of racism I think that the SJW overuse of accusations of racism is already making the word lose its edge. If people are going to be accused of racism for things like joking about racism (like in the case of the #CancelColbert fiasco) or simply being white and not agreeing with a non-white person or a SJW about politics then many of them will start to give less importance to the word. If SJWs call you racist no matter what you say and do you're going to be less bothered by accusations of racism in general. This could be a good alibi for real racists, which could say that they're only victims of another SJW overreaction.

I actually think that the definition of racism as "prejudice plus power" also dulls the teeth of an accusation of racism. People tend to react more to an accusation if it's applied fairly: if someone is punished and someone else isn't for the exact same actions then we tend to assume a bias in favor of those who aren't punished. By defining racism as "prejudice plus power" you are admitting that some people will not be socially punished for doing things that other people do.

[Tribble]

The best way to frame the discussion is to keep it simple and keep assumptions to a minimum: "Black males are over-represented in prison. Why?"

Yep. And, if you're curious, the best answer that we have to date is: because black males are more likely to have been raised by a single, unemployed, opposite-sex parent who had several other children of about the same age. These are also the best predictors for white males committing violent crimes ... it's just that the odds of a white male being raised by a single, unemployed, opposite-sex parent with a bunch of other kids isn't as high as that for black males.

Warning: saying what I just said ... even though it does not blame the over-representation of black males in prison on race ... will usually evoke even louder accusations of racism against you. Because reasons. At best, you'll be given a few examples of black males who were raised by single unemployed mothers-of-many as a "disproof" and will then have to explain what an anecdote is.

Been there. Done that. Have the battle scars.

[Kirbmarc]

The best way to frame the discussion is to keep it simple and keep assumptions to a minimum: "Black males are over-represented in prison. Why?"

Yep. And, if you're curious, the best answer that we have to date is: because black males are more likely to have been raised by a single, unemployed, opposite-sex parent who had several other children of about the same age. These are also the best predictors for white males committing violent crimes ... it's just that the odds of a white male being raised by a single, unemployed, opposite-sex parent with a bunch of other kids isn't as high as that for black males.

Warning: saying what I just said ... even though it does not blame the over-representation of black males in prison on race ... will usually evoke even louder accusations of racism against you. Because reasons. At best, you'll be given a few examples of black males who were raised by single unemployed mothers-of-many as a "disproof" and will then have to explain what an anecdote is.

Oh, I agree with that, and what you said has already happened to me over at Patheos, when I described "institutional racism" as the consequence of differential rates of employment and socio-familiar conditions between ethnic groups.

It's interesting that a racially neutral perspective, which doesn't assume any genetic explanation, is called "racist" just because it doesn't blame racism.

[Kirbmarc]

Yep. And, if you're curious, the best answer that we have to date is: because black males are more likely to have been raised by a single, unemployed, opposite-sex parent who had several other children of about the same age. These are also the best predictors for white males committing violent crimes ... it's just that the odds of a white male being raised by a single, unemployed, opposite-sex parent with a bunch of other kids isn't as high as that for black males.

If this is the case then a way to possible reduce the numbers of criminals is to reduce the number of single, unemployed, opposite sex-parents with many children around the same age.

Of all those factors the easier to fix, at least on paper, seems to be employment (as I said: on paper), but reducing other issues (like teenage pregnancies) might also reduce the number of single women with many children of the same age, since women who get pregnant as teenagers tend to be more likely to be single (because the fathers of the children are also likely to be teenagers with no means to support them) and to have more children (because they start early).

[Barbie's Boyfriend]

The best way to frame the discussion is to keep it simple and keep assumptions to a minimum: "Black males are over-represented in prison. Why?"

Yep. And, if you're curious, the best answer that we have to date is: because black males are more likely to have been raised by a single, unemployed, opposite-sex parent who had several other children of about the same age. These are also the best predictors for white males committing violent crimes ... it's just that the odds of a white male being raised by a single, unemployed, opposite-sex parent with a bunch of other kids isn't as high as that for black males.

Warning: saying what I just said ... even though it does not blame the over-representation of black males in prison on race ... will usually evoke even louder accusations of racism against you. Because reasons. At best, you'll be given a few examples of black males who were raised by single unemployed mothers-of-many as a "disproof" and will then have to explain what an anecdote is.

And don't forget the shrieking from the "I don't need a man for nothin' " Feminists. Well, except to get preggers

[Billie from Ockham]

Been there. Done that. Have the battle scars.

It's interesting that a racially neutral perspective, which doesn't assume any genetic explanation, is called "racist" just because it doesn't blame racism.

That, IMO and experience, matching Tribbles, is why the current attempts to have a "conversation" about race in the US are all failing (and actually causing more grief). The answer that is most likely to be correct is ruled unacceptable in advance.

For shits and giggles, compare the reactions and discussions of the NFL quarterback sitting during the National Anthem to the reactions and discussions of atheists doing the same thirty years ago. (This was my lunch-time discussion a few days ago.)

For even more fun, try bringing up Bill Cosby's criticism of black culture, which happened to match (pretty closely) what the subsequent research has found. This is especially entertaining if the group with whom you bring it up includes a bunch feminists. But do not do this at a lunch serving food with decent aerodynamics.

[Barbie's Boyfriend]

Because of the way racist is used in common parlance. It's a handy way to keep people behaving ethically, if, and only if, it maintains its teeth. Sure, if we drill down into the concept any further we can arrive at what you're saying, but the majority of people are never going to develop anything beyond the basic heuristic of "something gets labelled [x] and [x] is bad, so I need to avoid doing it and shame anyone who does". I want the words to maintain their stigma, but be applied more precisely, whereas it sounds like others want to have the words lose their stigma and have a conversation about why the stigma existed in the first place. Maybe then inventing more precise terms which could themselves carry stigma? Which admittedly isn't a bad idea. I just like mine better.

Interestingly enough this might explain why religions are so socially successful: they're a handy way to keep people behaving in a certain way which is beneficial to a specific kind of society. "God hates [x]" is a useful shorthand for "something gets labelled [x] and [x] is bad, so I need to avoid doing it and shame anyone who does", since God is assumed to be the source of morality and of an eventual reward or punishment after death. If you want to change society you only need to change [x]. If you want to keep society as it is you keep [x] as it is.

This is done by consulting the Holy Book(s) and the traditional wisdom and coming up with different interpretations. The interpreters of the Holy Book and of the traditional wisdom are therefore invested with a huge amount of power, and society is related to their role and their interpretation of the Holy Book.

However, in a non-religious setting, where is no ultimate source of morality, this means that [x] should carefully defined in order to avoid the word losing its edge. The more [x] applies to a larger set of actions and ideas the more likely are people to question whether [x] is actually so bad: the more likely you are going to be punished exactly as severely for a different range of actions and ideas, the less are you to care about behaving ethically. You might as well get hung for a sheep as for a lamb.

The will of a supernatural, omniscient, omnipotent god is unquestionable and the only way to disobey it is either deny the existence of such a god or attack the interpreters of its will. The will of other humans is more easy to question: you just need to think they're fallible and wrong, which isn't too hard.

In the context of racism I think that the SJW overuse of accusations of racism is already making the word lose its edge. If people are going to be accused of racism for things like joking about racism (like in the case of the #CancelColbert fiasco) or simply being white and not agreeing with a non-white person or a SJW about politics then many of them will start to give less importance to the word. If SJWs call you racist no matter what you say and do you're going to be less bothered by accusations of racism in general. This could be a good alibi for real racists, which could say that they're only victims of another SJW overreaction.

I actually think that the definition of racism as "prejudice plus power" also dulls the teeth of an accusation of racism. People tend to react more to an accusation if it's applied fairly: if someone is punished and someone else isn't for the exact same actions then we tend to assume a bias in favor of those who aren't punished. By defining racism as "prejudice plus power" you are admitting that some people will not be socially punished for doing things that other people do.

But as a couple of SJW acquaintances recently told me, the term "SJW" is also losing its effectiveness, because a large % of people on the Right call anybody to the left of Rash Lamebrain or Attila the Hun SJWs

[Billie from Ockham]

Yep. And, if you're curious, the best answer that we have to date is: because black males are more likely to have been raised by a single, unemployed, opposite-sex parent who had several other children of about the same age. These are also the best predictors for white males committing violent crimes ... it's just that the odds of a white male being raised by a single, unemployed, opposite-sex parent with a bunch of other kids isn't as high as that for black males.

If this is the case then a way to possible reduce the numbers of criminals is to reduce the number of single, unemployed, opposite sex-parents with many children around the same age.

While that sounds sensible, you really really need to be careful about jumping from a regression equation to a solution. It is also possible that "artificially" removing one of the (positive) predictors will actually increase the odds of the outcome. You need to understand the causal relationships ... not just the significant correlations.

ps. good luck trying to your study of why the sons of single unemployed female baby factories are so likely to end up in jail past the grant-review panel

pps. if you decide to "attack" one of the other predictors besides unemployment, maybe by suggesting that gov't child-support benefits only increase for the second child, not the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth, to reduce the incentive to keep having more kids when you're single and unemployed, have fun with the few people who will still talk to your racist and classist ass

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Speaking of situation in the US most African slaves that were brought to the American colonies were tribes of inner Guinea, Ghana and the Ivory Coast traded by local kingdoms, people from today Togo, Benin or Nigeria sold to the colonists mostly by the Yoruba empire or West Africans from today Congo, DRC and Angola sold to them by West African empires/kingdoms. Slave traders build trading posts and bases on the coast, and rarely sought out slaves from the inner parts of Africa.

What if the more intelligent West Africans became slavers, while the less intelligent ones kept getting captured? That would lead to a Founder Effect of lower-than-average intelligence among the descendent of slaves.


I think this is officially my first Pit Kill.

[free thoughtpolice]

The aussie plan sounds good to me. Did their politicians lose popularity for it? If they are in the country illegally and/or breaking laws put them in detention and send them back as soon as possible. If you take away the incentive for this to happen you put the people smugglers out of business and prevent people from drowning or otherwise facing danger in transit. If they are genuine refugees they should be in UN camps and dealt with accordingly, preferably sent home when it becomes safe to do so.

Problem is, what is "back" when your refugee came without papers? Keep them in custody forever?

Keep them in detention until you can determine with some degree of certainty who they are and/or where they come from, or else you give cheaters incentive to destroy their papers and you end up with a system that gives criminals or terrorists an easy entry.
Bad luck for some honest people but preferable to allowing bad actors to cause damage to our own honest people. This has been a problem for some time and there are usually ways to eventually get a good idea of who you are dealing with.

[Billie from Ockham]

Speaking of situation in the US most African slaves that were brought to the American colonies were tribes of inner Guinea, Ghana and the Ivory Coast traded by local kingdoms, people from today Togo, Benin or Nigeria sold to the colonists mostly by the Yoruba empire or West Africans from today Congo, DRC and Angola sold to them by West African empires/kingdoms. Slave traders build trading posts and bases on the coast, and rarely sought out slaves from the inner parts of Africa.

What if the more intelligent West Africans became slavers, while the less intelligent ones kept getting captured? That would lead to a Founder Effect of lower-than-average intelligence among the descendent of slaves.

I think this is officially my first Pit Kill.

The problem that I have with this story is that it would predict that the descendants of slaves would be lower-than-average running backs, because, after all, their ancestors got caught by Nigerians, for Pete's sake, and we all know that Nigerians make lousy line-backers.

Nice try, tho'.

[VickyCaramel]

Yep. And, if you're curious, the best answer that we have to date is: because black males are more likely to have been raised by a single, unemployed, opposite-sex parent who had several other children of about the same age. These are also the best predictors for white males committing violent crimes ... it's just that the odds of a white male being raised by a single, unemployed, opposite-sex parent with a bunch of other kids isn't as high as that for black males.

If this is the case then a way to possible reduce the numbers of criminals is to reduce the number of single, unemployed, opposite sex-parents with many children around the same age.

Of all those factors the easier to fix, at least on paper, seems to be employment (as I said: on paper), but reducing other issues (like teenage pregnancies) might also reduce the number of single women with many children of the same age, since women who get pregnant as teenagers tend to be more likely to be single (because the fathers of the children are also likely to be teenagers with no means to support them) and to have more children (because they start early).

When you point at single parenthood, I think you are pointing at a symptom not a cause. One of the earliest racist jokes I remember concerned Father's day in Brixton, baring in mind that blacks arrived in the UK in the late 50s and this joke was around in the 70s. I would ask why black communities would slip into this culture within a generation. And I also understand that teenage pregnancy and single motherhood is on the decline in many areas of Europe and America, I would be interested to know if this decline was uniform across races.

Be in no doubt that single motherhood was and is seen as a career by many. While once living off the welfare system would be something to be ashamed of, there are certain sections of society where it is encouraged. I have witnessed this in poor white communities, I am sure the black community is no different.

Putting race aside, I see the problem as being one where the system is easily exploited, and the removal of shame from society... although it seems fair game to shame people for racism, just not for being a thieving lazy slut. In this way, you are very much right, religion did help keep the general population in line.

I think it is possible that the real problem for black communities is that they blame racism. This allows them to justify bucking the system.
In white communities, there are people who will buck the system, but they are going to have a tougher time blaming anyone for their decisions. It also explains why black culture punishes black people who they perceive as acting white.

[Billie from Ockham]

When you point at single parenthood, I think you are pointing at a symptom not a cause.

Please note that I didn't call it either of those things. I called it a significant predictor of the outcome.

[Kirbmarc]

While that sounds sensible, you really really need to be careful about jumping from a regression equation to a solution. It is also possible that "artificially" removing one of the (positive) predictors will actually increase the odds of the outcome. You need to understand the causal relationships ... not just the significant correlations.

Of course. Which is why you need more studies on the matter.

ps. good luck trying to your study of why the sons of single unemployed female baby factories are so likely to end up in jail past the grant-review panel

Maybe you need to frame it in more "acceptable" academic terms? You can blame the higher religiosity in black communities and faith-based sex ed for promoting a lifestyle of multiple pregnancies and pregnancies at an early age, which leads social issues. Indeed I'm not sure that two factors aren't to blame.

pps. if you decide to "attack" one of the other predictors besides unemployment, maybe by suggesting that gov't child-support benefits only increase for the second child, not the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth, to reduce the incentive to keep having more kids when you're single and unemployed, have fun with the few people who will still talk to your racist and classist ass

Yeah, that would be a pretty costly tactical mistake these days.

[Kirbmarc]

While that sounds sensible, you really really need to be careful about jumping from a regression equation to a solution. It is also possible that "artificially" removing one of the (positive) predictors will actually increase the odds of the outcome. You need to understand the causal relationships ... not just the significant correlations.

Of course. Which is why you need more studies on the matter.

ps. good luck trying to your study of why the sons of single unemployed female baby factories are so likely to end up in jail past the grant-review panel

Maybe you need to frame it in more "acceptable" academic terms? You can blame the higher religiosity in black communities and faith-based sex ed for promoting a lifestyle of multiple pregnancies and pregnancies at an early age, which leads social issues. Indeed I'm not sure that two factors aren't to blame.

pps. if you decide to "attack" one of the other predictors besides unemployment, maybe by suggesting that gov't child-support benefits only increase for the second child, not the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth, to reduce the incentive to keep having more kids when you're single and unemployed, have fun with the few people who will still talk to your racist and classist ass

Yeah, that would be a pretty costly tactical mistake these days.

[Sunder]

Be in no doubt that single motherhood was and is seen as a career by many. While once living off the welfare system would be something to be ashamed of, there are certain sections of society where it is encouraged. I have witnessed this in poor white communities, I am sure the black community is no different.

Government aid is chock full of perverse incentives, and if you're at the bottom of the earnings ladder where the amount of money on offer makes a big difference, then doing something positive for yourself like getting a job comes with a hefty effective penalty.

The conservative solution is mainly to just cut welfare. Which liberals can rightly point out just leaves a lot of needy people high and dry. There's no political will for genuine reform.

[Kirbmarc]

And I also understand that teenage pregnancy and single motherhood is on the decline in many areas of Europe and America, I would be interested to know if this decline was uniform across races.

Teenage pregnancy declining mostly due to the use of contraceptives.

Be in no doubt that single motherhood was and is seen as a career by many. While once living off the welfare system would be something to be ashamed of, there are certain sections of society where it is encouraged. I have witnessed this in poor white communities, I am sure the black community is no different.

Then you'd need a welfare reform, but yes, once again, good luck getting it passed.

Putting race aside, I see the problem as being one where the system is easily exploited, and the removal of shame from society... although it seems fair game to shame people for racism, just not for being a thieving lazy slut. In this way, you are very much right, religion did help keep the general population in line.

On the other hand religion also discourages the use of contraceptives and abortion, which reduce teenage pregnancies at least. The higher degree of religiosity in the black community might have something to do with the higher number of teenage pregnancies.

But that's probably seen as racism (and attacking religion, which is another big no-no in US politics).

I think it is possible that the real problem for black communities is that they blame racism. This allows them to justify bucking the system.
In white communities, there are people who will buck the system, but they are going to have a tougher time blaming anyone for their decisions. It also explains why black culture punishes black people who they perceive as acting white.

There are no doubts some cultural attitudes which discourage people from improving their social position. "Acting white" is the black community version of the tall poppy syndrome that preserves a highly insulated and hierarchical cultural system (like ethnic communities) from people who might threaten it.

But again, if you're saying this you're probably labeled as a vile racist.

[jet_lagg]

Because of the way racist is used in common parlance. It's a handy way to keep people behaving ethically, if, and only if, it maintains its teeth. Sure, if we drill down into the concept any further we can arrive at what you're saying, but the majority of people are never going to develop anything beyond the basic heuristic of "something gets labelled [x] and [x] is bad, so I need to avoid doing it and shame anyone who does". I want the words to maintain their stigma, but be applied more precisely, whereas it sounds like others want to have the words lose their stigma and have a conversation about why the stigma existed in the first place. Maybe then inventing more precise terms which could themselves carry stigma? Which admittedly isn't a bad idea. I just like mine better.

Let me be blunt.

If you believe that the idea that the different races differ in ways other than those that define race should "maintain" its current negative "stigma" (which I agree that it has), then you are part of the problem with open and honest discussions about race. It does not matter if you are trying to restrict the negative stigma to only some of the differences between races, because then you're just begging for a discussion about which attributes are better, which cannot be answered objectively. Even worse, you appear to be saying that believing and/or knowing and/or stating some facts is morally good while believing and/or knowing and/or stating other facts is bad. I ain't going within a mile of that sort of thinking.

I'm not interested in having an honest and open conversation with a dyed-in-the-wool racist (I actually doubt someone who hates an individual because of their race is capable of honesty), and I don't think anyone else, save their therapist, should be either. Racism is as reprehensible a position to me as sadism, and any theoretical contributions a person might have to make are outweighed by how objectively miserable they make the environment the conversation is taking place in (exceptions allowed for the clincally curious, impossible to offend or outrage sorts). But I do think we're talking past one another. As I noted at the outset I don't use the word the same way you do. I'm not talking about people like Steersman, I'm talking about people like Dylan Roof and would be Dylan Roof's.

[MarcusAu]

That seems so unfair - why doesn't anyone get labeled as the good type of racist.

[free thoughtpolice]

Billie from Ockham wrote:

For even more fun, try bringing up Bill Cosby's criticism of black culture, which happened to match (pretty closely) what the subsequent research has found. This is especially entertaining if the group with whom you bring it up includes a bunch feminists. But do not do this at a lunch serving food with decent aerodynamics.

Racist and rapist! I'm not so sure that Cosby isn't white. :ugeek:

[Tigzy]

As I noted at the outset I don't use the word the same way you do. I'm not talking about people like Steersman, I'm talking about people like Dylan Roof and would be Dylan Roof's.

Don't tempt that fucker, please. You know he'll only start with....well, you know what, and he's been fairly quiet about it recently, what with his present preoccupation of 'deporting them all'. Observing this conversation has me all like, 'whatever you do, don't mention the bore...'

[Billie from Ockham]

And I also understand that teenage pregnancy and single motherhood is on the decline in many areas of Europe and America, I would be interested to know if this decline was uniform across races.

In the US, the rates are going down for all races, but the racial disparity remain virtually unchanged.

Here's a plot from the US Dept of Health & Human Services:

http://www.hhs.gov/ash/oah/adolescent-h ... nicity.jpg

[jet_lagg]

Sorry.

Steersman, to be clear, I am saying you are NOT a racist. That is something I ALREADY BELIEVE. I do not need you to explain to me or anyone else why it's the case. ;)

[Billie from Ockham]

{snip}
But I do think we're talking past one another. As I noted at the outset I don't use the word the same way you do. I'm not talking about people like Steersman, I'm talking about people like Dylan Roof and would be Dylan Roof's.

The problem with your position is that you're keeping your use of a term so that you can yell at people that you know aren't going to listen to you while also pushing away people with whom you might have a useful discussion.

Or maybe I'm just playing the game of "marginalized" groups by taking back a term and flipping its stigma. Who knows?

[Bourne Skeptic]

Probably :nin:

I guess Great American Satan isn't the savior PZ had hoped. :roll:

[Billie from Ockham]

That seems so unfair - why doesn't anyone get labeled as the good type of racist.

Because no-one (who matters) rides trains any more, regardless of whether they arrive and depart on time.

[Kirbmarc]

Be in no doubt that single motherhood was and is seen as a career by many. While once living off the welfare system would be something to be ashamed of, there are certain sections of society where it is encouraged. I have witnessed this in poor white communities, I am sure the black community is no different.

Government aid is chock full of perverse incentives, and if you're at the bottom of the earnings ladder where the amount of money on offer makes a big difference, then doing something positive for yourself like getting a job comes with a hefty effective penalty.

The conservative solution is mainly to just cut welfare. Which liberals can rightly point out just leaves a lot of needy people high and dry. There's no political will for genuine reform.

There's an interesting example on Wikipedia about the "welfare trap":

An example of how the welfare trap works: a person on welfare finds a part-time job that will pay the minimum wage of $5 per hour, 8 hours per week. Half of the $40 earned per week, or $20, will be deducted from welfare payments leaving $20 net gain. The government will also levy a tax on their $40, say 15% ($6). There may also be extra child-care and commuting costs, now that the person is no longer able to remain at home all day, and the loss of domestic productivity. Therefore, despite performing eight hours of work productive to society (and, theoretically, themselves), the person is now worse off than before they acquired employment.

Indiscriminately cutting welfare very likely isn't a good idea, but reforming it to avoid "welfare traps" might be a good one. Some people have proposed some ideas based on a different system of welfare which is tied to promotion of work, which while presented in the article in a way that is a bit too optimist ("ending poverty in America") might work better than the current system.

There are some pretty interesting considerations in the article (although I don't know how accurate they might be):

Bearing children outside of marriage is the second central cause of poverty, in addition to nonwork. The poverty rate for female-headed households with children is 44.5 percent, compared to 7.8 percent for married couples with children. The poverty rate for married black Americans is only 11.4 percent, whereas the rate for black female-headed households is 53.9 percent. As Rector explains in Obama to Spend $10.3 Trillion on Welfare, “If poor women who give birth outside of marriage were married to the fathers of their children, two-thirds would immediately be lifted out of poverty. Roughly 80 percent of all long-term poverty occurs in single-parent homes.”

But if the mother is married to a man who earns a significant income, the benefits are lost. Rector adds, “Welfare … converts the low-income working husband from a necessary breadwinner into a net financial handicap. It transformed marriage from a legal institution designed to protect and nurture children into an institution that financially penalizes nearly all low-income parents who enter into it.”

Again, I don't know how accurate this might be, and the overly-optimistic tone of the article is suspicious, so if you have better evidence or better ideas let me know.

Anyway what I think that the discussions we're having on welfare, socio-economical considerations, along with foreign policy, should be what atheist/skeptics should discuss when it comes to society and politics. This is the stuff that social justice activists should care about. It's not necessary for people to agree in order for them to have a civil discussions on these themes: conservatives, liberals, libertarians can provide their ideas and their evidence to be discussed without considering their political counterpart evil.

SJWs are ultimately a waste of time and effort and occupy the discourse that should be focusing on the effects of policies and on socio-economics with first world problems like special pronouns, special identities, video games, toys or internet trolling (to say nothing of offers for coffee in elevators).

[Sunder]

Probably :nin:

I guess Great American Satan isn't the savior PZ had hoped. :roll:

Going for quantity over quality I'd guess, since the latter's been off the table for a while now.

Of course even if viewership levels off (it's not going to reverse course, let's be serious), this would just mean dividing an already tiny pie among a greater number of entitled bloggers.

[Ape+lust]

Looks like we're on the other side of Peak Wu:

http://imgur.com/3mFwAVX.jpg

Gee, she's the same irritating high-maintenance imbecile she was last year. Wonder what's turning the justice geniuses against her?

[Ape+lust]

Going for quantity over quality I'd guess, since the latter's been off the table for a while now.

Of course even if viewership levels off (it's not going to reverse course, let's be serious), this would just mean dividing an already tiny pie among a greater number of entitled bloggers.

Tiny pie? You'd better believe it :lol:

http://imgur.com/3DhHxql.jpg

The figure on the left is Pharyngula's monthly traffic on the eve of its transition to FtB. The figure on the right is Quantcast's estimation of monthly traffic for the ENTIRE FtB network.

This massive comedown is from May, before nearly everyone not named PZ left the site.

I remember the old bloggers used to grouse about the meager shares coming from FtB, yet Peez would routinely announce new expansions of the blogroll. I wonder if the dumb bastid diluting their pay packets played a part in their decision to leave.

[Cunt of Personality]

Greetings fellow pitters :)

I have a theory, newly formed...

A significant extended break from following the insane ramblings of internet mentalists, due to moving (20 metres) into our newly refurbished (10 years to get planning permission) barn has given me a new perspective on life.

https://i.sli.mg/PA3oX9.jpg

I'm not as angry now. I don't give a fuck what Armado Moorcock or PC Meers has to say about anything. They're insane and beneath contempt.

There is of course, here in France, more than a few reasons to be angry about regressive shitfuckery in all its modern manifestations (I would like to take this extremely belated opportunity to extend to Phil, his family and friends, my best wishes with regard to moving past the fucking insane bullshit that happened in Nice) but being eternally angry in advance does nothing but destroy your mind.

Be well everyone, you are the best of the internet - good people maligned by idiots. Never stop being who you are, but don't ignore the opportunity to take the time to consider what is important in your life.

Sorry for rambling. I shall now refill my glass. :cdc:

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Yep. And, if you're curious, the best answer that we have to date is: because black males are more likely to have been raised by a single, unemployed, opposite-sex parent who had several other children of about the same age. These are also the best predictors for white males committing violent crimes ... it's just that the odds of a white male being raised by a single, unemployed, opposite-sex parent with a bunch of other kids isn't as high as that for black males.

If this is the case then a way to possible reduce the numbers of criminals is to reduce the number of single, unemployed, opposite sex-parents with many children around the same age.

Of all those factors the easier to fix, at least on paper, seems to be employment (as I said: on paper), but reducing other issues (like teenage pregnancies) might also reduce the number of single women with many children of the same age, since women who get pregnant as teenagers tend to be more likely to be single (because the fathers of the children are also likely to be teenagers with no means to support them) and to have more children (because they start early).

When you point at single parenthood, I think you are pointing at a symptom not a cause. One of the earliest racist jokes I remember concerned Father's day in Brixton, baring in mind that blacks arrived in the UK in the late 50s and this joke was around in the 70s. I would ask why black communities would slip into this culture within a generation. And I also understand that teenage pregnancy and single motherhood is on the decline in many areas of Europe and America, I would be interested to know if this decline was uniform across races.

Be in no doubt that single motherhood was and is seen as a career by many. While once living off the welfare system would be something to be ashamed of, there are certain sections of society where it is encouraged. I have witnessed this in poor white communities, I am sure the black community is no different.

Putting race aside, I see the problem as being one where the system is easily exploited, and the removal of shame from society... although it seems fair game to shame people for racism, just not for being a thieving lazy slut. In this way, you are very much right, religion did help keep the general population in line.

I think it is possible that the real problem for black communities is that they blame racism. This allows them to justify bucking the system.
In white communities, there are people who will buck the system, but they are going to have a tougher time blaming anyone for their decisions. It also explains why black culture punishes black people who they perceive as acting white.

We had the same joke in my hometown in the mid-seventies, regarding our local "project". It becomes a vicious circle, with young black males committing crimes, getting incarcerated, so then not being around to serve as fathers/male role models.

The cultural origins of the problem are hoary and deep-rooted. Urban black culture is essentially non-functional at this point. More jobs won't cure the fundamental problem.

[jet_lagg]

{snip}
But I do think we're talking past one another. As I noted at the outset I don't use the word the same way you do. I'm not talking about people like Steersman, I'm talking about people like Dylan Roof and would be Dylan Roof's.

The problem with your position is that you're keeping your use of a term so that you can yell at people that you know aren't going to listen to you while also pushing away people with whom you might have a useful discussion.

Or maybe I'm just playing the game of "marginalized" groups by taking back a term and flipping its stigma. Who knows?

You see a bug, I see a feature. I don't want actual racists to participate in the discussion, and I want them to know they'll get yelled at if they try. It creates a situation where the genuine racists know they must alter their external behavior to hide their internal beliefs, thus becoming functionally non-racist. Any secret racist clever enough to have any insights worth hearing will also be clever enough to precede it with, "now I'm just playing devil's advocate you guys, but what if..."

...and now I'm wondering how many engaging conversations I've had online with racists who were just very skilled at masking it :think:

[Steersman]

<snip>
There are ways to have our cake and eat it too, but they involve honesty and enough forward thinking to realize how stupid the definitions like the one that got my goat and started this whole conversation are.

But the key point to be clear on is that you would be talking about differences (if they do exist) in distribution of intelligence, along a bell curve, not flatly saying "Racial group X is more intelligent than Racial group Y. There are geniuses and cretins in all races.

For different reasons, but both relating to demagogy and idiocy, far Right-wingers and SJWtards will fail to appreciate this nuance - which makes a worthwhile conversation virtually impossible, and the research fraught with potential minefields.

Really don't think jet_lagg "gets" population distributions and statistics and definitions - for starters. And I agree with you that, in general, the inability to get such nuances does make having a reasonable conversation rather difficult.

And, as sort of a case in point and relative to your "geniuses and cretins" comment, you no doubt know that Jews have garnered some 20% of the Nobel prizes that have ever been awarded despite comprising less that some 0.2% of the world's population. No doubt some of that is due to the culture, but hard not conclude that a significant percentage is probably due to genetics - and endogamy. That, of course, can lead to various genetic defects - seem to recollect that there is a higher than normal incidence of genetic diseases (Tay-Sachs for one I think) in the Jewish population, but it seems also to increase the incidence or frequency of very clever people in the population - longevity seems also to be a "positive" benefit.

Unlikely that in general endogamy, or in-breeding, significantly raises the average of course, but it seems likely to increase the population density at the positive and negative tails of the distribution.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Looks like we're on the other side of Peak Wu:

http://imgur.com/3mFwAVX.jpg

Gee, she's the same irritating high-maintenance imbecile she was last year. Wonder what's turning the justice geniuses against her?

Xe needs to release another computer game and quick. I suggest a text-based adventure.

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

Part of the problem is the term racism has been wrested from ordinary, sensible control and is know in the hands of regressive idiots who use it to club anything that pokes up from their ideology. It Is rapidly losing both its sting meaning. I think Billy is right that it needs to be contextualized more, and robbed of its boogie man status.

Even if somebody is a real, repugnant racist ( in the classical sense) that finding a hurtful way to insult them is the best course to correct their actions.

[VickyCaramel]

Anyway what I think that the discussions we're having on welfare, socio-economical considerations, along with foreign policy, should be what atheist/skeptics should discuss when it comes to society and politics. This is the stuff that social justice activists should care about. It's not necessary for people to agree in order for them to have a civil discussions on these themes: conservatives, liberals, libertarians can provide their ideas and their evidence to be discussed without considering their political counterpart evil.

SJWs are ultimately a waste of time and effort and occupy the discourse that should be focusing on the effects of policies and on socio-economics with first world problems like special pronouns, special identities, video games, toys or internet trolling (to say nothing of offers for coffee in elevators).

...and so say all of us!

Unfortunately, you understate this. The conversation we just had would be impossible for the left just on the basis that we are slut shaming single mothers, never mind the issue of race.

The real tragedy is that there are a great many people in poverty traps who really don't want to be there. I think there are probably a large number of people who probably don't understand the trap they are in but could be helped, and yet more who could be helped by getting them out of debt.

[Sunder]

Finding out Wu is despised by the rest of the mean girls clique of name SJWs is a bit like the Carrier ousting. It makes it just a tiny bit harder to laugh at them, but I'll manage.

[Steersman]

<snip>
I think it is possible that the real problem for black communities is that they blame racism. This allows them to justify bucking the system.

In white communities, there are people who will buck the system, but they are going to have a tougher time blaming anyone for their decisions. It also explains why black culture punishes black people who they perceive as acting white.

We had the same joke in my hometown in the mid-seventies, regarding our local "project". It becomes a vicious circle, with young black males committing crimes, getting incarcerated, so then not being around to serve as fathers/male role models.

The cultural origins of the problem are hoary and deep-rooted. Urban black culture is essentially non-functional at this point. More jobs won't cure the fundamental problem.

Partly because I know Tigzy is waiting for, or dreading, the other shoe dropping [ ;-) ], but largely because it seems apropos, something from Adam Croom's article on slurs [thanks again Skep ;-) ] where he quotes Chris Rock:

There’s like a civil war going on with black people, and there’s two sides: there’s black people, and there’s niggas. The niggas have got to go. Every time black people want to have a good time, ignorant ass niggas fuck it up […] Can’t go to a movie the first week it comes out. Why? Cause niggas are shooting at the screen! What kind of ignorant shit is that? […] Hey I love black people, but I hate niggas boy, boy I hate niggas […]

Can’t have shit in your house! Why? Because niggas will break in your house. Niggas that live next door to you break in your house, come over the next day and go, “I heard you got robbed”. Nigga, you know you robbed me! You ain’t hear shit cause you was doing shit! Damn. Tired of niggas […]

You know what’s the worst thing about niggas? Niggas always want some credit for some shit they supposed to do. For some shit they’re just supposed to do. A nigga will brag about some shit a normal man just does. A nigga will say some shit like, “I take care of my kids”. You’re supposed to you dumb motherfucker! What kind of ignorant shit is that? “I ain’t never been to jail!” What do you want, a cookie?! You’re not supposed to go to jail, you low-expectation-having motherfucker! Fuck man, I’m tired of this shit.

You know what’s the worst thing about niggas, the worst thing about niggas? Niggas love to not know. Nothing makes a nigga happier than not knowing the answer to your question. Just ask a nigga a question, any nigga, “hey nigga what’s the capital of Zaire?” “I don’t know that shit! Keepin’ it real!” Niggas love to keep it real; real dumb! Niggas hate knowledge. Shit, I was talking about niggas breaking in your house, well if you want to save your money put it in your books. Cause niggas don’t read. Put the money in the books, shit, books are like kryptonite to a nigga […]

Every time you see welfare in the news they always show black people. Black people don’t give a fuck about welfare. Niggas are shaking in their boots! “Oh they’re goin’ to take our shit!” Shit, a black man that’s got two jobs, going to work every day, hates a nigga on welfare. Nigga get a job! I got two, you can’t get one? (my emphasis, see also Rock, 1997, track 12 Rock, 2002, track 8)

But yea, some serious dysfunctionality in the black community, not all of which it can entirely be blamed for, and the promise of jobs, even if there's some substance to it, won't help much if it's not accompanied by a change in attitude.

[blitzem]

Greetings fellow pitters :)

I have a theory, newly formed...

A significant extended break from following the insane ramblings of internet mentalists, due to moving (20 metres) into our newly refurbished (10 years to get planning permission) barn has given me a new perspective on life.

https://i.sli.mg/PA3oX9.jpg

I'm not as angry now. I don't give a fuck what Armado Moorcock or PC Meers has to say about anything. They're insane and beneath contempt.

There is of course, here in France, more than a few reasons to be angry about regressive shitfuckery in all its modern manifestations (I would like to take this extremely belated opportunity to extend to Phil, his family and friends, my best wishes with regard to moving past the fucking insane bullshit that happened in Nice) but being eternally angry in advance does nothing but destroy your mind.

Be well everyone, you are the best of the internet - good people maligned by idiots. Never stop being who you are, but don't ignore the opportunity to take the time to consider what is important in your life.

Sorry for rambling. I shall now refill my glass. :cdc:

Very rustic and cozy. I am driven mad with jealousy.

(No, really. A beautiful refurb) :clap: