But what's dangerously myopic about going ballistic as Gibbs did in his statements is that just 10 years ago we had a little event in which only a tiny portion of the base went with a third party bid from the left --- and the consequences were catastrophic. Democrats, of all people, should remember that every vote matters.Dangerously myopic! Terrifyingly farsighted! Horrifically astigmatic! Every vote! Thanksralph!
-La Digs
What the events of the last ten years have demonstrated is that a drawly Southern Republican and a clipped Northern Democrat will substantively govern in the same manner, engage the same means, and pursue the same ends. If Barack Obama, a man with a modest-yet-demonstrable history as something resembling a liberal, embraces aggressive war, the surveillance state, and the necessary eradication of social security, how the hell do they imagine that Al Gore, one of the most conservative and staunchly pro-military Democrats in the modern history of the party would've governed? You think one of the architects of the decade-long collective punishment of Iraq and America's official policy of "regime change" would've overlooked the opportunities of nineleven? Because . . . because in the alternate future history in which we're living the Norse Dynamite Commission gave him a Best-in-Show award? They gave that shit to Obama, too. I'll say this, for Al. At least he resisted the temptation to address the dignitaries from atop that monstrous pile of Afghan skulls and weeping Pakistani women.
By the way, the natural counterpart to thanksralphery is wouldyouprefermccaineration. The implication, apparently, is that in place of the blood-drinking crocodilian overlord we got, we could've gotten one who was also snippy . . . and old! How crazy would he have been? Whew, really dodged the bullet! I am increasingly convinced that this alternative isn't merely counterfactual, but wildly so. Now, you can argue that Barack Obama won the election because people were tired of Gee-dub, or because Obama ran a masterful political campaign, or simply because the economy crashed at exactly the right moment, but the reality is that Obama won because the system whereby American political parties select their candidates is weird and the Republicans ended up with McCain, a truly lousy contestant, a lurching, senescent grouch with a whiny voice and shaky hands who selected as a running mate a pneumatic PTA chief whose hee-haw antics offended the professional class. He never had a chance. If, on the other hand, the Republican party had produced a reasonable establishment candidate--let's call this hypothetical character Ritt Momney--with good hair, a ready smile, and a program of technocratically plausible, bureaucratically feasible empty promises, and if that grinning Gorgon had picked as a partner some sort of reassuringly homey, vaguely Christian backslapper--let's call him, oh, I don't know, Huck Mikeabee--then that candidate very well might've beaten back the challenge of the guy with the funny name, the windy style of speechifying, and the poor debating skills. And Ritt Momney, well, a guy like that, presumably, would've done, uh, what now? Would've largely continued the policies of his predecessor, even as he deplored certain rhetorical excesses and sought a more competently business-like demeanor to paste over the operations of the empire? Sounds familiar, nay?
The "activist base" . . . oy, you've got to love this self-conception: the scurrying loyalists of a top-down factional hierarchy perceiving themselves as engaged in activism, like the catering staff considering themselves titans of industry because they lay out the water bottles before a meeting of the board of directors. The "activist base" persists in believing that The Obama is An Historic Candidate who was handed An Historic Moment and is in the process of squandering it, when plainly Obama is a very ordinary administrator at a fairly ordinary moment doing an entirely ordinary job. Empires get embroiled in simmering conflicts in the provinces. Recessions happen. The imperatives and inertia of the empire are larger than the current emperor. He'll probably get drummed out after this term, and the next guy will probably benefit from a modest economic recovery that will ensure him eight years, even if he's got bad table manners. You heard it hear first. The motto of this blog bears repeating: plus ça change, motherfuckers.
105 comments:
The jury's in, you're an idiot.
Shit son, ain't no jury for a peerless motherfucker.
We're all deluded, it's just that some of us can manipulate the alphabet a litle more amusingly than others.
Lol. Us? The ticket stub does not make you a ballplayer.
Ah, yes, wouldyouprefermccaineration, now rebranded as getreadyforpresidentpalin2012. Once again we see that fearful symmetry - pwoggles:Sarah Palin as teabaggers:Scary Islamosexual Afro-Marxist.
Thanksralph!
Al Gore, one of the most conservative and staunchly pro-military Democrats in the modern history of the party would've governed? You think one of the architects of the decade-long collective punishment of Iraq and America's official policy of "regime change" would've overlooked the opportunities of nineleven?
I am sure vice president Lieberman would have prevented Gore from acting rashly.
I don't suppose Ryerson's coming back to enlighten us. But the only part of this post that I found even debatable was the notion that a slick Mormon from MA had any chance at the candidacy in 2008. Sure, the Opposition Party may talk a big game about capitalism and growing the economy by investing in business. But they don't want actual businessmen running the country. Ahoy, polloi!
No, just keep them in the penthouse suites at the conventions and keep those $10,000 checks rolling in. And stay well away from the cameras.
i enjoy reminding people that Bush drew more Dem votes in Florida than Nader did.
also, Sarah Palin is wicked pneumatic! she can RULE ME any day.
I actually pushed the button for the prince of darkness in '08, as an admittedly futile anti-war/anti-establishment protest. But the fact that it might have pissed off a few of the cheerleaders for team blue makes it seem like a somewhat less hollow gesture.
"The "activist base" . . . oy, you've got to love this self-conception: the scurrying loyalists of a top-down factional hierarchy perceiving themselves as engaged in activism, like the catering staff considering themselves titans of industry because they lay out the water bottles before a meeting of the board of directors."
I damn near choked on a mouthful of peanuts when I read this.
"Nineleven" is good. Google sez you're almost a pioneer on that.
As for the discovery that USG is only mildly affected by politics: right. Perhaps you are ready for the red pill.
In fact, dear progressive, you fear and loathe democracy. Moreover, you are right to do so. Representative democracy is a thoroughly despicable system of government. It is dangerous and impractical at best, criminal at worst. And you hate it like the poison it is.
But you don't hate it under this name. You hate it under the name of politics. Think of the associations that the words political, partisan, politician, and so on, produce in your mind. You say: George W. Bush politicized the Justice Department. And this is a brutal indictment. If you hated black people the way you hate politics, you might say George W. Bush negroized the Justice Department, and the phrase would carry the same payload of contempt.
Similarly, when you hear antonyms such as apolitical, nonpartisan, bipartisan, or even the new and truly ludicrous post-partisan, your heart thrills with warmth and affection, just as it would if you were a racist and you heard the words Nordic, Anglo-Saxon, or amelanistic. And as it does when you hear the word democracy. You certainly would never say that George W. Bush democratized the Justice Department.
Careful Eye-Ahs, Crispy will be upset if you insult Sarah palin like that!
Darth Nader FTW
Montag, I enjoy reminding them that Gore actually won Florida... And they were too chickenshit to fight it.
And hey, bring on president Palin, that would be the most hilarious clusterfuck I've ever seen!
Leonard,
Moldbug is the quality to IOZ's quantity. But the two shall never meet, as part of taking the red pill involves accepting the reality of human biodiversity. Jimmy the Greek got what he deserved, yo.
gawleegeeyousurebetcha
I like your belief that the democrat's rolling over on Florida was cowardice rather than the result of an agreement or diktat.
Occams razor, dude. Both parties rule towards common aims and when conflict outside the scripted theatre of elections occurs an unexplainable lay-down results. Cowardice was not a factor.
"Human biodiversity." One of those words doesn't mean what you think it means. Maybe both.
Moldy is how I first landed here, via TGGP. It's funny how IOZ's and Moldy's perceptions of the current governmental reality are basically exactly the same, but their ideal solutions are exact opposites.
IOZ is by far the better writer and piss-taker-out, but Moldy has a much more mature view of how people act and feel in reality. I wish they would take each other on sometime.
Monsieur, I direct you to a similar commentary I did much earlier this year:
http://progrepnow.blogspot.com/2010/01/amber-interviews-mr-wickham-of-two.html
As Willie spear-shaker said,
Forsooth! Verily, 'tis what 'tis.
11:49
So all of a sudden you take all words by their, Joe Biden, literal meaning? There is also diversity within species, ya? HBD is just a short way of saying it. Unless the difference between the Holstein and Jersey is all just social construct.
Ideal solutions!
LOL, good catch. But I don't think you've read his stuff at all.
Wait, IOZ. You have solutions?
Wonderful. One issue: "...probably benefit from a modest economic recovery..."
There will be no recovery. Not in four years. Probably not in eight. Maybe not in sixteen.
I used to read Unqualified Reservations, most regularly I'd say between 07-08. He says some interesting things, but never lets the opportunity to use one word get in the way of a paragraph. I appreciate his heterodoxy, but his prose is just unreadable.
You're dancing too hard to be believable. And sports metaphors ain't your long suit, kid. Play to the sycophants, they luv ya.
""Human biodiversity." One of those words doesn't mean what you think it means. Maybe both."
Duh. It means that black guys have small brains, asians have small dicks and white guys get the best of both. At least that's what Steve Sailer told me.
Ryerson, you're a bright billboard of esprit beside the escaliers.
Monsieur, it seems I'm going OT more frequently here, but you actually reside in the city of my origin and may be able to shed some light on recent events there. Has something gone off in the water supply? I mean, first clown pants and now this:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10223/1079103-53.stm
"If Barack Obama, a man with a modest-yet-demonstrable history as something resembling a liberal, ..."
I think this needs a few more qualifiers.
"... it's just that some of us can manipulate the alphabet a litle more amusingly than others."
Hmm, one party is named IOZ, and the other's handle is some long run-together scrum. Alphabet manipulation advantage: IOZ.
"... but Moldy has a much more mature view of how people act and feel in reality."
This is the sort of thing that makes me falsely claim that I just spit [BEVERAGE] all over my [COMPUTER COMPONENT]. Or does "in reality" now mean "in his head," and no one told me? Paging Nick Bostrom.
jr,
There's more scientific evidence for a genetic IQ gap between blacks and whites than there is for human-caused global warming. I thought you guys were reality-based?
"There's more scientific evidence for a genetic IQ gap between blacks and whites than there is for human-caused global warming."
Okay, "in his head" it is. Thanks for clarifying so promptly.
Here we go again. Seriously! I'm not racist or nothin', I'm just sayin'!
I wish someone would finally recognize the truth about the genetic papillae gap between salty and sweet.
I still prefer Levis.
Ten out of ten people I quizzed on the Red Line to Mattapan did not read Paul Krugman's latest column. Ergo, IQ discrepancy.
It is a scientifically factual theory that if you burn black people they produce more phlogiston, which is probs why they can jump so high.
"Ten out of ten people I quizzed on the Red Line to Mattapan did not read Paul Krugman's latest column."
What sort of questions did you ask when quizzing them about the Red Line to Mattapan? Did you then shout "Fooled you! The Red Line doesn't go to Mattapan"? Because that would be awesome.
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/10/james-watson-tells-inconvenient-truth_296.php
But yeah, bury that head deeper. Pretend it's Josh Hartnett's ass.
"scientific evidence for a genetic IQ gap between blacks and whites"
Obviously I'm not a golfer, but do you have any idea how many highly technical, definitional, densely transdisciplinary premises need to be established for it not to sound like the usual Bell-curve sermon on the mount, to say nothing of actually holding true to reality?
Josh Hartnett? Do you think that there's a genetic explanation for hilariously out-of-date pop-cult references?
Oh, christ. You are not using James "I won't hire a fat person because they aren't ambitious enough" Watson as your evidence are you?
Oooh, James Watson. Why am I suddenly thinking of chestnuts?
There's an old saying amongst us scientician types: "When an elderly, eminent scientist says something is possible, he's probably right. When he spouts too much of the racist and/or misogynist horseshit for which he is infamous, he gets fired by his peers, many of whom are at least as accomplished as he, especially since their claims to eminence didn't result from blatantly appropriating someone else's work." We scientitian types have a hard time being concise.
Seriously, James Watson is your ass-in-the-hole? Mindless argumentation from authority is a trait shared by simpleton conservatives and childlike pwoggies. Kum-ba-yah, I guess.
We can try this the usual way:
Define Black. Define White. Define IQ. Return in time for definitions not to have obsolesced. Construct measurement. Derive meaning.
"There's more scientific evidence for a genetic IQ gap between blacks and whites than there is for human-caused global warming. I thought you guys were reality-based?"
"you guys"? Just what team do you think I play for? Never mind. Don't answer that.
Intelligent people mock HBD not because of its answers, but because it feels compelled to ask those questions in the first place. The world is composed of a population of individuals and one has the radical freedom to slice and dice that population into any sort of taxonomy that one likes.
People who decide that the taxonomy of race is the most important one uber alles are just plain suspect. You dig what I'm saying?
If you want to have a conversation about intelligence, then why not talk about intelligence? Probably because talking about how much more intelligent "we whites" are as opposed to "them blacks" is a way to make white folk who actually aren't all that intelligent feel superior because they happen to share more genes with Stephen Hawking.
The race realists are by and large the white equivelant of those black guys who stand on street corners dressed like Afrika Bambaataa and Soul Sonic Force, railing on about how blacks are the Lost Tribe of Israel and whites are the devil.
You can gussy it up in all sorts of fancy empirical-ist jargon, but racial cheerleading is racial cheerleading. At least the Black Israelites have some bitchin' fashion sense.
Back to the Crocodilian overlord for a moment...Is is it possible Ritt Momney would have been less destructive, perhaps slightly inconvenience by the donkey congress or even less blood-thirsty? The first could be true even for McCain himself.
The hell you talking about, MDS? The Red Line does go to Mattapan. You just have to switch the train in Ashmont. What are you, some kinda human biodiversity denier?
(Oh, and Trevor: if you're trying to convince people how enlightened and intellectual you are, lighten up on the fag-bashing. Old vaudeville trick.)
Flunkin social studies.
Coldheart,
No bashing, light-hearted banter among cynical nihilists. Faux outrage and bleeding hearts do not apply. And man, it's not that out of date, he still makes movies. I could have said "Justin Beiber", and that would have been topical, but wrong.
And I see no one bothered to read the link past the URL. James Watson!! Fire bad!
"the reality is that Obama won because the system whereby American political parties select their candidates is weird and the Republicans ended up with McCain, a truly lousy contestant, a lurching, senescent grouch with a whiny voice and shaky hands who selected as a running mate a pneumatic PTA chief whose hee-haw antics offended the professional class. He never had a chance. If, on the other hand, the Republican party had produced a reasonable establishment candidate--let's call this hypothetical character Ritt Momney--with good hair, a ready smile, and a program of technocratically plausible, bureaucratically feasible empty promises, and if that grinning Gorgon had picked as a partner some sort of reassuringly homey, vaguely Christian backslapper--let's call him, oh, I don't know, Huck Mikeabee--then that candidate very well might've beaten back the challenge of the guy with the funny name, the windy style of speechifying, and the poor debating skills."
Yeah, um, no. Not at all.
I mean, I guess you "could argue" that if the Republican candidate was prettier/aw-shucksier he would have won the presidency. But there were a bunch of other federal elections in 2008, as there were in 2006. Could the Republicans not find one candidate better-looking than the Democrat in two election cycles?
Don't let that mind get dull on us now, IOZ. We need you sharp.
Last one, then I'm calling it a night: why is it 99.9996% of the blog posts written about the sub-standard IQs of blacks are written by non-black people? That's a higher correlation than the one between international student assessment tests and measured IQ data, as reported by Heiner Rindermann in the European Journal of Personality ("The g-factor of international cognitive ability comparisons: the homogeneity of results in PISA, TIMSS, PIRLS and IQ-tests across nations", August 2007). And since a 0.98 correlation's good enough for James "Can't Be Wrong About DNA" Watson, then an 0.99996 correlation's good enough for me. Time to start makin' assertions!
And I see no one bothered to read the link past the URL. James Watson!! Fire bad!
There is no reason to read the link (although I read some of it).
Human genetic variation analysis does not support the existence of race. I.e. variation within subgroups is larger than variation between subgroups. Any differentiation of group based on visible characteristics is arbitrary and wrong.
@Joe
I voted for Nader in 08 as well, but not for him, I wanted to vote Peace & Freedom because a) they're only registered in California and b) they're ironic.
And can somebody explain how some troll got us talking about The Bell Curve? I thought the point was to run Mike Ryerson out of town for being a Democratic hack?
I'm still waiting for a Caligula Presidency. You know, a guy that'll bang Hilary and Chelsea Clinton on national TV. Dissolve Congress, then rape they're children. Appoint his horse as VP. Nuke Tehran, not necessarily cuz he hates the Mooslims, but just because he got bored with raping congressional children. You know, interesting stuff. I might even go back to watching CNN and FOX to keep myself updated.
Oh, come on, ts, a thread in which a dude suggests that hack proof of the innate stoopiditee of niggrz is a scientific and civilizational advancement on par with the advent of controllable fire. There's gold in them hills.
But... Dan at 11:13 a.m. inadvertently raises the question of the day: is it "Eye-ahs," or is it "Eee-ahs?" I've always thought it was the latter, due to your general Frenchifiedness, but would appreciate the correction if necessary. One wants the voice in one's head to pronounce proper names correctly.
maybe so IOZ, but this damn thread is hogging all the attention, and no one is getting involved in the more recent and stimulating conversation going on (or, not going on, as it were) the in the thread above this one
The thing about high intelligence is that it can rationalize anything -- or be used for mocking anything. You take the blue pill, the story ends, you believe whatever you want to believe.
They peed on your rug, dude?
5:21
Why do you think that just because variation within groups is larger than the difference between groups, this invalidates the existence of different ethnic groups? The range of height found in females is greater than the distance between the average height of females and males. The statement "men are taller than women" still stands, taken in its obvious statistical sense.
The dominance of people of West African descent in running must be due to their families valuing running. They nurture their running. Yeah, that explains everything!
... And the dominance of straw in your argument must be due to your family valuing stupidity. Are you African-American, by chance?
Why do you think that just because variation within groups is larger than the difference between groups, this invalidates the existence of different ethnic groups? The range of height found in females is greater than the distance between the average height of females and males. The statement "men are taller than women" still stands, taken in its obvious statistical sense.
Because I am talking about extensive scientific studies on genetic variation and the ability to classify race based on that genetic variation. Witherspoon is the best example. Of course some guy on a blog quoting an asshole is pretty good counter evidence.
You just have to treat it like a freshman year physics problem, and then it's easy to show that one race is more intelligent than another.
1. Assume race is a definable characteristic.
2. Assume the existence of a "white" race and a "black" race.
3. Assume the existence of innate intelligence that can be quantified by a test.
4. Assume that IQ tests quantify that innate intelligence.
5. Assume horses are spheres.
6. Solve for X.
7. Whites are more intelligent than blacks!
See? Easy as can be.
Oh, lulz. The dominance of Scandanavians in the Nordic combined proves the superiority of the Aryan race!
fish, your faith is showing. Obviously you are reading your "best example" to see what you want to see. Anyone with a modest knowledge in the area can read your example and see that it does not support your religion.
Here's an excerpt, my bold:
It has long been appreciated that differences between human populations account for only a small fraction of the total variance in allele frequencies (typically presented as FST values of 10–15%; Lewontin 1972; Nei and Roychoudhury 1972; Latter 1980; Barbujani et al. 1997; Jorde et al. 2000; Watkins et al. 2003; International HapMap Consortium 2005; Rosenberg et al. 2005). Such observations triggered controversy from the outset. Some geneticists concluded the differences were negligible (Lewontin 1972); others disagreed (Mitton 1978). Despite the limited data, it soon became apparent that even a modest number of loci should allow accurate assignment of individuals to populations (Mitton 1978; Smouse et al. 1982).
That is, they've had clear scientific evidence for the genetic basis of race since 1978! Pretty well hushed up, that. Why do you think scientists soft-pedal their understanding of race? Could it be that serious consequences await any of them that speak too clearly? As, for example, happened to Watson?
Thus the answer to the question “How often is a pair of individuals from one population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?” depends on the number of polymorphisms used to define that dissimilarity and the populations being compared. The answer, equation M44 can be read from Figure 2. Given 10 loci, three distinct populations, and the full spectrum of polymorphisms (Figure 2E), the answer is equation M45 [congruent with] 0.3, or nearly one-third of the time. With 100 loci, the answer is ∼20% of the time and even using 1000 loci, equation M46 [congruent with] 10%. However, if genetic similarity is measured over many thousands of loci, the answer becomes “never” when individuals are sampled from geographically separated populations.
(Humans have some 30000 genes.) You got any other reputable scientific sources that you claim debunk race? Perhaps you should actually read the things before you leap to conclusions?
If I may suggest, you can still believe that human beings ought to be equal without believing that they are actually equal. So there's no need for science to threaten your religion here.
Whatz all this biziness about reis on a Nader - Establishment's Favourite Rebel thread?
I mean if he be qualified, he be qualified, but thats not here or their.
Capt'n Obvious
Len, I hate to be a drag, but you appear to be the one to have no idea what the fuck you're talking about and even less firm grasp on what Witherspoon et al. are saying.
Bref: it is possible to classify human beings into populations; however it is not possible to extrapolate further generalized "genetic" characteristics about such populations because variation within them is equal to or greater than variation between them.
And word to the wise:
We shall smite the Mongol beast again, like our forefather Ivan Groznii
- said Admiral Zinovy "MadDog" Rojestvensky to his officers, sailing into Tsushima Straits.
Capt'n Obvious
"Bref: it is possible to classify human beings into populations; however it is not possible to extrapolate further generalized "genetic" characteristics about such populations because variation within them is equal to or greater than variation between them."
Why not?
Imagine you have Bell curve A and you have Bell curve B, shifted slightly to the right of A. The width of the curve is definitely greater than the distance between equivalent points on A and B, yet it is still possible to claim that on average, samples from B will be 'more to the right' than samples from A. The metric can be height, IQ, whatever. It's not a moral argument, it's a scientific claim backed by evidence.
I just get this feeling that no one here understands basic math. The claim is not that all whites are more intelligent than all blacks, or that all blacks are better runners than all asians. it's that, on average, there are statistical differences between these racial groups, over various criteria, due to difference in the prevalence of certain gene clusters.
@TW
So, the society has (reasonably working) tools to sift through the large gaussian of caucasian intelligence (test and grades and certification procedures and the like).
So the small difference between the mean of the "white" gaussian and the "black" gaussian will not thwart the discrimating ability of these societal tools.
So what's the big ideea?
Capt'n Obvious
the curves are a wash, dummy. all I hear is white noise.
Lol. "Why not?"
IOZ, I see you're another man of the cloth. But hey, so long as you admit that it is possible to "classify human beings into populations", that being weasel-speak for "scientifically determine race", then you are agreeing with me, and opposing Brother fish. Brother fish, I may remind you, staked out this scientifically illiterate position: "Human genetic variation analysis does not support the existence of race." He later quoted Witherspoon et al. as supporting that position, when in fact they clearly refute it. And since that was my point in opposing him, I think I do have an idea of what the fuck I was talking about and a firm enough grasp on what Witherspoon et al. were saying.
But as for our ability to extrapolate characteristics about populations based on genes, well, it depends on what you mean by your terms, donnit? We cannot currently "extrapolate" almost any characteristics based on genes, because we don't know what almost all genes do.
This has nothing to do with variation in genetic structure. It has to do with our near-total ignorance about the mapping of genotype to phenotype.
If we did have such knowledge, then, contra your assertion, we would be able to extrapolate all sorts of things, as statistical truths. Of course, if we had such knowledge, then we wouldn't need to use race any more in many circumstances, because we could just test individuals. This will be, I have predicted, the long-term end of the progressive denialism about race. Once we can determine individuals' phenotypes from their genes, proggies will cease denying the science, while continuing to insist that race itself is meaningless and uninformative (except where it is). So, you've got that to look forward to.
I'ze has an Eyeque a 58 n eeven ize noes tha whyt man envented dat iq test to keeps da blacks down.
TW/Leonard:
Population does not equal race (at least as it is being generally conceived here). Skin color is controlled by somewhere from 1-5 loci. So sure, with pretty good accuracy at 1000 markers, I can say that someone has 43% heritage from the Nigerian plains, 4% Scottish, and 53% Mongolian, but dude, James Watson is 16% African heritage and that guy looks as white as it gets. But he could easily be more "black" than OJ Simpson in terms of genetic markers. The point is that skin color is a really poor indicator of population, particularly in the US where genetic diversity is rapidly approaching its maximum, and yahoos like Murry/Hernstein that make claims about genetics based on black/white categories in the US are just ignorant about human genetics.
How's that for religion?
And to quote Whitherspoon which apparently contradicts my claim:
Phenotypes controlled by a dozen or fewer loci can therefore be expected to show substantial overlap between human populations. This provides empirical justification for caution when using population labels in biomedical settings
Again skin color controlled by 1-5 loci. Since my math understanding has been challenged, I will have to look up whether 5 is less than 12...
Of course, if we had such knowledge, then we wouldn't need to use race any more in many circumstances, because we could just test individuals.
yeah, see... you hit the nail with the head right there. what are these cases when you "need" to use race? what i see are a whole bunch of people who "want" to use race.
an example: let's say that i'm holding tryouts for my sprinters on my track team and there's five black guys and five white guys. i could just pick the black guys cause most world class sprinters are black. i could also just have them race and pick the fastest guys. does that make me a science-denying progressive?
Leonard, I admire you. You're the sort of man who'd double-down when the dealer shows a face. "I have a strong enough grasp." Lulz. Oh, boy.
@12:21
Well, there are cases where claims of racism are made because the outcomes do not fall in line with what the 'there is no race' crowd expect. There was a case fairly recently regarding testing for chief firefighter, and not enough blacks (by the progressive metric that race doesn't matter except when it does) scored well enough. But if scientific understanding is brought in (or as IOZ wants to put it, lulz, science, lulz), the result may in fact be exactly what is expected, statistically speaking. So truth wins out, and instead of wasting time and money on silly lawsuits and unjust quotas (where race doesn't matter except when it does), we all benefit.
Fish, skin color is not the totality of what people mean by race, even in terms of its popular meaning. Rather, the popular visual determination of race is done via the overall appearance of a person. It does include skin color, but what the face looks like. Eye color, hair color, hair type, shape of nose and eyes, prognasticism, etc.
As used by scientists, "race" basically means population. Or rather, that's what it used to mean. Modern scientists have largely abandoned the term "race", instead using "population", as a form of squid ink. Then they can have technical discussions without progressives howling "racist" at them. (It's amusing to me that the wiki page for population currently has not a single instance of the word "race" on it. Talk about hiding your tracks!)
But skin color is nonetheless highly correlated with race. "Approximately 10% of the variance in skin color occurs within groups, and ~90% occurs between groups." How can this be given Wilberforce et al's work? It can be because skin color is not a neutral allele. Also, I rather doubt any skin-color gene was among the differences studied by Wilberforce et al. (They studied SNPs chosen in a way that is opaque to me.) Most SNPs aren't even in coding DNA, and many make no difference in what is coded. If a skin color gene was in his group of SNPs, then its high correlation was swamped by the low correlations of other SNPs. Statistics can be used to obscure as well as reveal.
Skin color genes are strongly selected alleles, with significant evolutionary meaning. If you have (or had, anyway) light skin in the tropics, you burned and/or died young of skin cancer. If you had dark skin in Northern Europe, you got rickets. Evolutionary pressure has created strong correlations between these genes and, er, "populations". That is why they are so useful for our rudimentary visual phenotype assays.
Oh man. Haha. "These wikipedia articles that I hastily skimmed after you challenged my vague generalizations with specific knowledge are definitely dispositive." The internet!
Oh... how did I miss this? Did someone actually let Inky breed?
I think Leonard must have actually discovered a new form of renewable, alternative energy.
j r, it is largely progressives who want to use race officially in the modern Western world, to measure racial proportions for affirmative action, disparate impact suits, desegregation, etc. Do they "need" this?
As for your example, performing measurements of phenotypes you care about is common sense as well as scientifical. So go ahead and run the guys for your progressive-scientific track team.
Where we differ is in how to pick people for an attribute when you cannot measure them. (Or, if you are forbidden from measuring them because the measurements keep giving the wrong answers, which is what Trevor mentions above.)
How do you think he accounts for energy lost due to friction, Mr. Fun?
Leonard,
"Do they "need" this?"
No. They are wrong. And so are you.
Here's a hint: If you can't measure an attribute, then you sure as shit can't divine it from race. Give me one example when you are forced to make a meaningful judgment based on race and race alone.
They peed on your motherfucking rug, dude.
Inkberrow returns as Leonard?
Story at 2400 on the military clock, Jock!
For meta-snark to be effective, it must proceed from fact. The truth is that Leonard is the hate-child I had with Ryerson. "Leonard" has changed his name from Silas, however---we named him for the butler on "The Big Valley".
So, let me see. Black people are inherently, genetically, dumber than white people. There's a conspiracy afoot to conceal this fact.
Who is behind this conspiracy? The white people who appear to be in charge of pretty much everything? Or the black people who appear to be, well, not? If it's the white people, what's their motive? If it's the black people, what, are they using their semi-functional brains to mastermind a conspiracy from behind bars, where they've cleverly, but not intelligently, tricked white people into, uh, storing a big chunk of them for...safe keeping?
What is the origin of this conspiracy? Who fired Watson and why? I'd try to figure it out myself, but I'm Polish, so I'm too busy installing this screen door on my submarine.
The Jews.
related
Progressives.
Are these the Nazis, Walter?
Ethan---
An emissary from the Bilderbergers arranged for Watson's dismissal. Subsidiaries from the IMF and World Bank to the United Nations and selected nation-states anticipate enormous profit influence from brokering a shiny new global redistribution of (some) wealth. The moral imperative animating global reparations for history's most recent losers takes a hit if anything but Judeo-Christian capitalist rapine contributed to the geo-political status quo.
Inky: I laughed. Mostly at the Ryerson corner of the triangle.
"hobgoblins, all imaginary"
WTF is this pissing contest on the biological merits of race, anyway?
Capt'n Obvious
Trevor:
The range of height found in females is greater than the distance between the average height of females and males. The statement "men are taller than women" still stands, taken in its obvious statistical sense.
Correct. Is this the same thing as saying there's a ”height gap” between men and women, though?
Leonard:
As used by scientists, "race" basically means population.
No, most often it has meant the same as ”subspecies” or something pretty close to it. Most populations aren’t sufficiently distinct to be called subspecies (although it’s a bit arbitrary how much is ”sufficient”). Subspecies only allow ”splitting” on one level of the taxonomic hierarchy, but populations can be defined on multiple levels in population genetics (continents, countries, tribes or villages could all be used to delimit 'populations' in different contexts)
...if genetic similarity is measured over many thousands of loci, the answer becomes “never” when individuals are sampled from geographically separated populations.
(Humans have some 30000 genes.)
But as you yourself noted later, the ”loci” in these studies are SNPs and other mostly noncoding genetic markers. It doesn't really make sense to compare the number of SNPs that differentiate populations to the number of protein-coding genes.
Charles F.---
I'm glad you laughed, but I for the record I must note that I think Ryerson is aces and gives good text.
Leonard---
Go to your room this instant.
LP Steve, I'm pretty sure that Monsieur clarified the pronunciation on some thread before. Or, I may have invented that memory while stoned.
And I'm glad you're glad, Inky. I wonder if your gladness obtains through the disclosure that I'm a white man.
You know, with race being such a central concern... and whatnot.
YINZ!
Charles F.---
I missed that disclosure, but now that you've reiterated it I hope you find therapeutic outlets for your shame and guilt. It's not easy being born into original sin.
As for me, I will report that my own "Race As A Central Concern" quotient lies almost dormant as compared with say America's celebrated Right Reverend Civil Rights Activists, or the members of the Congressional Black Caucus.
According to th' Man, it is pronounced eye-oz
Though I tend to like to call him "your fuzziness".
Air Shoes
Nike Shox
Airshoes
Nike Shoes For Women
Pink Air Rift
Shoes With Air
Griffey Shoes
nike shoes
cheap nike shox
ferrari shoes
Air Max Shoes
Puma Shoes
mens Jordan Shoes
Nike Shox R4
Nike Air Force Ones
Childrens Shoes
Men Nike Shoes
Running Shoes
Air Sport Shoes
NIKE AIR MAX 90
NIKE AIR MAX 360
PUMA FUTURE CAT
Chaussures Sports
Nike Chaussures Femme
Nike Chaussures Homme
Air Jordan Chaussures
acheter air jordan fr
There’s defiantly a lot of great tips here I’m going to try to be more aware of.I am glad to post my views and points in this blog, Blogs are becoming the main source of knowing about things certainty!Its an informative topic.
Post a Comment