It's really ridiculous how many biological race realists and hereditarians are on the advisory board of the supposedly "antiracist" FAIR
The whole effort is just a cynical farce.
Even without looking through all the "Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism" board advisors, I can recognize at least 2 people who say systemic racism doesn't exist.
Look at bio race realist John McWhorter's assessment of racism in America. 🤡
If you create an organization like FAIR and build it with people who believe "black" people are naturally different types of humans than "white" people and that these natural physical/mental differences explain social inequalities, don't be surprised no one takes you seriously.
Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism board member Jason D. Hill, demonstrating what tolerance really looks like!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Andrew Sullivan knows that his racial hereditarian views are public. There's little value in him pretending the rest of us can't read.
The number of Andrew Sullivan's claims about "race differences" are legion. Everyone knows he's a member of the caliper crew, and that's not the only head measurement he's famous for.
Hey @sullydish, do we need to keep going about demonstrating your racial hereditarian views, or do you want to keep thinking we can't read?
Racist stereotypes are much easier to reinforce in a person's mind than they are to refute.
Most of the evidence for this claim is from John Ogbu who studied a couple cities in the early 2000s and generalized. So here's another city, more recently.
Other researchers have investigated the claim that smart black kids are ostracized for being smart. It's been bunk for years.
I post this because a lot of people liked the initial tweet, seeing it as a cute platitude.
No. It's telling you that "race" cannot "explain" any outcome. The politics of a society is what explains those outcomes.
No child does anything "because they are black", because no child "is black". That doesn't deny that society labels that child as black and acts upon that racialization. It doesn't even deny that the child reacts in response.
Rorschach Tweet - tweets containing enough social cues to be read 100% accurately by groups A and B, with both groups having violently conflicting reads.
A Rorschach Tweet example.
X: "fjlsuk adrhl chdet jdtyuf."
Group A: "Yeah, dogs are totally cute!"
Group B: "This monster wants to kill cats!"
I have felt frustrated seeing tweets that make sense to me, and others also think it reasonable.
Then, I see others without those cues who have reads that I think are ridiculous. But are their reads really invalid?
I have zero moral high ground on this. I've been on both sides.
One of the challenges of "criticizing your own side" when they go against your stated principles is it invites others to jump in and attempt to discredit the entire set of principles.
My own principles require that I speak out when my friends violate those principles. I ask and hope for the same from those on "the other side". Your principles should come first and foremost.
So, let's create positive space for that.
I should be able to address people who are fighting racism when they do so in a way I don't think is healthy, without having people seeing it as an opportunity to attack the entire anti-racism project itself.