It's remarkable how semantic many major arguments are. When left- debaters say "critical race theory does not exist" in high schools or ed schools, they are NOT denying that Zinn/1619/etc curricula are common - they are making the technical claim that crit. pedagogy is not CRT.
(2) Examples of this abound. I, too, would think that "racism is the biggest current problem for Black people," if I accepted the definition of 'racism' as being "any system within which Black people perform badly, for literally any reason."
(2) It's actually worth breaking down the "logical" framework behind the claim that everything is WS.
Essentially, the idea here is that any large gap between groups must be due to either (a) racism, however subtle/hidden or (b) probably-genetic "inferiority (Kendi 2019)."
(3) If you accept this thesis (and reject all hereditarian claims), the "logical" next step must be: "Any system which produces performance gaps between groups is thus racist/WS, and any person who DENIES this is also is racist, because they are supporting hereditarianism."
(2) What's especially funny about this is that what dude's unironically re-tweeting is my half-joking argument that no left-winger can logically - WITHOUT ad hominems - that Ben Shapiro is not smarter than "thinkers" like Kendi. #keep_the_SAT
One of the most enduring bad ideas in social science is that any large differences in performance (income, SAT scores) between groups have to be due to either racism or genetics.
There are many potential variables out here, gang. How OLD are the people we're talking about?
(2) When you think about it, the idea massive average differences in culture and training wouldn't much affect (say) IQ - which seems to be the default position on left and hard right - has to be one of the oddest things large groups of smart people have ever claimed to believe.
(3) Re a few DMs: a common hard-hereditarian position - see Nisbett (2005) reviewing Jensen (1978 on) -is that education and training don't much affect IQ.
This seems simply bizarre to me, since good schools literally teach the answers TO the questions that appear on IQ tests.
Serious question: why IS gender dysphoria the only major mental condition which is treated by telling the patient that what they believe is correct?
(2) I obviously have a starting position here, and am lazily asking on social rather than cramming through 12 queued JSTOR articles on affirmation v. "watchful waiting" - but I'm not trolling: why ISN'T this something we do with anorexics?
(3) As re the primary responses: first, GD IS currently considered to be a mental condition. Here's the DSM-5 description (psychiatry.org/patients-famil…). The note that this is only true if the condition causes distress seems to have been added recently, likely for political reasons.
The fact that the Founders of the first large modern democracy had slaves, in an era when ~all rich men of all colors had slaves or serfs, does not mean that founding the first large modern democracy was bad.
(2) This sort of cross-generational moral comparison could me used to de-legitimatize literally any set of heroes.
JFK and MLK were meat-eating homophobes with a...very male view of adultery. Should all of THEIR statutes come down, inside 20 years?
(3) For that matter, how does this work with the Crazy Horse statute?
By our standards TODAY, the (legitimately) great man was almost certainly a rapist, murderer/war criminal, home invader, and slaver if not slave trader. Tear it down or nah?
From a theoretical perspective, it is very difficult to coherently explain how 7-8 of the ten richest groups in an "institutionally racist" society are non-white.
(2) In fact, it looks like EVERY Asian and West African group - including some long-resident groups that have experienced racism (Chinese Americans) and some pretty obviously Black groups (Nigerian Americans) - 'beats' the white income average...en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_e…
(3) There's also a huge amount of variance just inside the "Whites" category.
While this is often - intentionally? - just ignored, white group incomes range from $101,000 for Australian Americans and likely around that level for Jews down to $38,000 for Appalachians. Racism?
Thomas Sowell's "The Vision of the Anointed" was one of the most prescient books of our time.
(2) Basically, the idea of the book is that the combination of population clustering - IIRC, the OG was an early reader of the Putnam essays that became "The Big Sort" - and targeted radical takeover of specific fields is creating a dangerously out-of-touch and often wrong elite.
(3) A NATIONAL cadre that shares certain characteristics - sheltered, urban, coastal/Great Lakes, low-upper class, liberal or Con-Inc, Ivy (maaaaybe Big 10) - sees itself as having unique and novel knowledge that qualifies members to lead and radically change the country.
As re "privileges," two facts from TABOO: Black Americans make up 25% of police shooting victims, but get ~80% of national media coverage of this problem and 10-20% of all victims of Black/white inter-racial crime - but get ~80% of national media coverage of THIS problem.
Something pointed out by serious people ranging literally from Tim Wise to Charles Murray is that 50% of competitors within any system will finish below average.
This has massive, obvious implications for all silly plans like "free college for all."
(2) Yes, yes - below the MEDIAN average.
Mean, median, and mode are all "the average."
(3) A lot of silly responses here. The point is that one of the major stated purposes of college ("majors," etc) is to prepare people for the ~20% of jobs ("Engineer") that require a college degree. "All in" proposals to provide 'elite' training make no sense.
So, my thoughts on "Missing White Woman Syndrome..."
First, there often IS more coverage of white as vs. POC female victims - up to 3x as much, per a paper I'll try to dig up and link below.
Then and as ~always, however, there's a huge "but."
(2) First, as always, saying this is meaningless w/o (a) basic and (b) ~universally ignored adjustments for class, prominence, age, etc.
"Racism" has nothing to do with the fact that a tax-payer of any color killed by their ex in Detroit will get less attention than G. Petito.
(3) It's also obviously true that members of different groups gain different levels of attention across MANY social problems. As I note in TABOO, the ~25% minority of Black police shooting victims receive 80% or more of all national mass media coverage of this issue.
Unpopular opinion: standardized tests have helped more smart poor kids join the elite than almost literally anything else.
Ok: while no doubt influenced by culture/SES/study time, ST scores provide a metric of CURRENT aptitude that means the same thing across classes and races. No alternative (internships, single-school grades, "gentlemanliness") comes even close as a fair measure.
(3) "Is this true, per-fessor?!!"
Yeah. I AM a professor, at a solid state U, b/c of the SAT. If you want to see the effect of testing on college attendance for poor Jewish, Asian, W. African, etc. kids, check out the references in @kennymxu's book...amazon.com/dp/1635767563/…
Obvious point: being able to......errr......leave your house has a value.
It is simply absurd - unbelievably asinine - to argue that all 350,000,000 Americans should wear two masks, or stay home as much as possible, to avoid perhaps 500 deaths per week, nationwide.
(2) A few follow-ups.
First, as re some of these very specific math points in the replies, my question here was obviously about how many deaths would be prevented if the massive vaccinated/nat-immune majority of the country (say) triple-masked...not about total death rates.
To take on the steel-man here, the 7-day rolling avg of C-19 deaths, per Worldometers, was 590 at the start of this past 7-day period. Today, it would be max 703. Should we all - not simply the vulnerable - stay home all day to perhaps halve THOSE numbers?
@EPoe187 This is a very "Supreme Court" style answer. So, you seem to be saying it is accurate that other academics/smart laymen PERCEIVE AmRen writers as bigots.
But, there's an obvious secondary question here: do you perceive it as CORRECT that most or all AmRen writers are bigots?
@EPoe187 (2) As re @mchappenstance's point, we're not talking here about someone being cited by a white-nat website. We're talking about several someones (I mean, they have a contributors' page) associated with the U.S. dissident right or a particular sci-paradigm WRITING for the site.
@EPoe187@mchappenstance (3) The obvious questions here are: does this indicate serious bigotry (as it obviously seems to), and if so what should be done?
Without a lot of "taqiya," the BEST response from one or more figures Young names would just be: "Yeah, I'm a racist. Can you prove me wrong?"
Serious question: what, exactly, are vaccinated people afraid OF, as re COVID-19?
(2) Per all data I have seen, you are VERY substantially less likely to get, and 89-94% less likely to face death or hospitalization from - CDC and Israeli conclusions still apply re this point - a virus that carried a 1/2,000-5,000 PRE-VAXX risk of death for healthy u-50 people.
(3) Is the worry that you might infect someone else?
Everyone over 12 has had the chance to get the vaccine for months. Literally every adult you might happen to cough on is either (a) vaccinated or (b) a probably-healthy person who consciously chose not to be vaccinated.
Like it if you want to definitely get notifications from my 57-TWEET thread on IQ, etc "culturalism," dropping - for real - tomorrow. All will appear under this. #five_wonks_will_like
(1) "Tarzan" of legend - or anyone illiterate - would score a "0" on a standard written IQ test. This implies something both profound and obvious: training and opportunity affect IQ as they do ~any other trait.
In this (lengthy) thread, I defend the position of IQ culturalism.
(2) The thesis of culturalism is that (1) non-genetic variables (2) other than "racism" dramatically affect IQ, and have often shifted scores by 15-20+ points from a starting position (X). Multiple jumps of this kind have been larger than ~any IQ GAP that exists in the 2021 USA.
Without excusing the hood, something that has to be taken into account when we look at crime rates is that smart upper-class people are very rarely arrested for crimes they commit.
(2) We tend to have a "brothers and rednecks" view of criminals, but the four objectively highest-crime environments I have ever been in were the 1990s Chicago rave scene (!!!!!), the college Greek scene, the sales/trading-floor world, and the Internet circa 2005.
(3) We might view this as "less evil" than low-end crimes like burglary, justifiably or not, but it is...not legal...to throw a 10,000 person indoor party full of u-21 people having raw sex and selling hard drugs, or to operate thepiratebay.org.