Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The only problem with the "race realist" hypothesis is that is incorrect. The history of the IQ test itself shows this. The people claiming a genetic component and those claiming that testing is culturally biased are both wrong. I don't think most people even really understand what exactly the IQ test is or how it has changed over the decades. The below article by Malcolm Gladwell explains it well:
Well 1. The truth can be racist. There are a lot of things that are true that are repulsive to people. Something being true or not does not stop it from fitting the definition of racism.
I would argue that race realism isn't really "true" per se. There are really only a handful of studies that makeup the totality of race realism, many are incredibly old and predate better data collection and analysis methodology. And even if the studies were taken at face value, the conclusion that this is genetic is fairly presumptuous anyway. I've yet to see an empirical study that shows the ratio of environment vs genetics and it's impact on human intellect. A race realist believes environment has little to no impact on intellect (though some feel it may have some). But they believe that genetics bar none has the most impact on intellect. None of these claims are objectively true, or at least they haven't been proven scientifically at the very least.
Lastly one could claim that race itself is not real. And that phenotypic traits like skin color really has little baring on intelligence at all. Or that humans can be fairly genetically diverse even within the same overall skin complexion. Africa has majority dark skin people, yet has the most genetic diversity of any continent in the world. So at the very least in terms of classification, race realist are working with some fairly superficial if not broad categories of "race".
So I do think a rush to just take a few studies ( a ton of them heavily refuted) and just slap an "it's the facts, it's the truth" and call it a day. I think people who are hasty to rush to these conclusions say a lot about their character.
Location: Appalachian New York, Formerly Louisiana
4,409 posts, read 6,545,770 times
Reputation: 6253
Quote:
Originally Posted by branh0913
Well 1. The truth can be racist.
Yes and no. I mean, it can in the sense that certain things are biased towards genetic traits that specific races have moreso than others. Like, how often certain cancers affect blacks opposed to whites.
But that's just life. Reality is a harsh and horrible thing and we all have to accept it because it ain't gonna change.
But if you mean pointing out that violent crime in the United states is dis-proportionally committed by and against blacks despite them being a minority group in the country, that's not racist it's just true.
"Racist" is practically meaningless right now in any discussion because it's a toxic term. I'm ok knowing that it's a fact that all races are more/less of a particular thing IN GENERAL. That's being a realist.
There is a problem with labeling anything "racist" in present society. Since the word was coined in 1902 by William Henry Pratt it has undergone several significant changes due to political influence which weight it with moral values that preclude any human being from daring to be human enough to entertain even the slightest racist thought without being considered more monster than human.
It is this non-scientific and objective application of value to common human problems that provides the paradox in OP's argument. Never in seven decades of life have I seen morality be more strongly applied in a society which increasingly demands that imposing moral will on others is forbidden. It's a true irony of progressive thought.
If: All Racism is 'bad'...
and: All Truth is 'good'...
Then: The truth cannot be Racist.
.. but it can be 'racist' only in the technical (not moral) sense if it describes racial differences accurately.
What a shame! I was enjoying reading your posts (much of them I do not agree with), then, due to a lack of intelligence on your part, or a lack of caring enough to proofread, or an erroneous belief that you can make simple mistakes and nobody will care, the misuse of a simple word shows that the prophet is not only wrong, but has feet of clay.
Sorry, but I believe that proper use of language is vital to the message. I suddenly lost interest in this thread and the statements of the OP. It was a fun read for a while, but no longer.
Sorry, but I believe that proper use of language is vital to the message. I suddenly lost interest in this thread and the statements of the OP. It was a fun read for a while, but no longer.
OP is just spouting liberal talking points anyway.
"Intelligence is environmental." "Race is not real." "There is more diversity within races than between races."
It has all been said and done before. People are going to believe what they want to believe.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
