A movement that I've been keeping an eye on...

For those topics that don't have a place in any of the other forums.

Moderator: Aitrus

User avatar
userque
Posts: 658
Joined: Mon May 05, 2014 5:43 pm

Re: A movement that I've been keeping an eye on...

Post by userque »

Thanks for the detailed response, I’ve logged it along with your prior questions to me. We’ll eventually get to them.

You didn’t seem to answer the last question, so I’ll ask it more directly, in case it was ambiguous.

Original question:
userque wrote:Do you believe as your definition asserts?
Here is the definition you posted:
Aitrus wrote:According to Encyclopedia Brittanica:

"Racism, also called racialism, the belief that humans may be divided into separate and exclusive biological entities called “races”; that there is a causal link between inherited physical traits and traits of personality, intellect, morality, and other cultural and behavioral features; and that some races are innately superior to others." Source: https://www.britannica.com/topic/racism
My question more properly asked, using the definition you posted:

Do you believe: “that there is a causal link between inherited physical traits and traits of personality, intellect, morality, and other cultural and behavioral features; and that some races are innately superior to others.”?

Here is the question asked using the Oxford definition ( https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/racism ) of racism:

Do you believe: “that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another.”?

__________________
"For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little"

User avatar
Aitrus
Moderator
Posts: 2391
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 5:03 pm

Re: A movement that I've been keeping an eye on...

Post by Aitrus »

userque wrote:Thanks for the detailed response, I’ve logged it along with your prior questions to me. We’ll eventually get to them.

You didn’t seem to answer the last question, so I’ll ask it more directly, in case it was ambiguous.

Original question:
userque wrote:Do you believe as your definition asserts?
Here is the definition you posted:
Aitrus wrote:According to Encyclopedia Brittanica:

"Racism, also called racialism, the belief that humans may be divided into separate and exclusive biological entities called “races”; that there is a causal link between inherited physical traits and traits of personality, intellect, morality, and other cultural and behavioral features; and that some races are innately superior to others." Source: https://www.britannica.com/topic/racism
My question more properly asked, using the definition you posted:

Do you believe: “that there is a causal link between inherited physical traits and traits of personality, intellect, morality, and other cultural and behavioral features; and that some races are innately superior to others.”?

Here is the question asked using the Oxford definition ( https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/racism ) of racism:

Do you believe: “that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another.”?
Ah, you're right - I didn't fully answer the question.

Yes, I believe that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, and qualities - that's been proven by science. But I do not think that these characteristics, abilities, and qualities makes any race inferior or superior to one another. Rather, it's the cultural behaviors and societal practices that make a nation's people superior or inferior.

As an example: as we discussed before, there are many white races, not one. I believe that the Soviet Union was inferior due to communism and for other reasons - and it consisted almost entirely of white people. I similarly believe that the communism of the Chinese, the North Koreans, of Vietnam, Cuba, and Venezuela are also all inferior. Not because of their races, but because of their government, their current cultural behaviors, and socially accepted practices (not all of them, admittedly, but a enough of them as to make my claim). This has nothing to do with race and everything to do with culture.
Seasonal Musings 2022: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=19005
Recommended Reading: http://tspcenter.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13474
"It's not what happens to you, but how you react to it that matters" Epictetus

User avatar
userque
Posts: 658
Joined: Mon May 05, 2014 5:43 pm

Re: A movement that I've been keeping an eye on...

Post by userque »

Aitrus wrote:Yes, I believe that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, and qualities - that's been proven by science. But I do not think that these characteristics, abilities, and qualities makes any race inferior or superior to one another. Rather, it's the cultural behaviors and societal practices that make a nation's people superior or inferior.

As an example: as we discussed before, there are many white races, not one. I believe that the Soviet Union was inferior due to communism and for other reasons - and it consisted almost entirely of white people. I similarly believe that the communism of the Chinese, the North Koreans, of Vietnam, Cuba, and Venezuela are also all inferior. Not because of their races, but because of their government, their current cultural behaviors, and socially accepted practices (not all of them, admittedly, but a enough of them as to make my claim). This has nothing to do with race and everything to do with culture.
Do you believe Blacks have a lower intelligence than Whites?

And do you believe a group of higher intelligence people are superior to a group of lower intelligence people?
"In the land of idiots, the moron is King."

User avatar
stilljammi
Posts: 181
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2019 3:59 pm

Re: A movement that I've been keeping an eye on...

Post by stilljammi »

First off I'd like to say it's difficult being the only person on one side and 100 people on the other. I've been in that position online and in-person and it's not exactly fun, so I respect you for that Aitrus.
Aitrus wrote:I think that the point he's trying to make of all those things is that we've all been fed false promises and lies, and he lays them out accordingly. He's saying that it's not his statements that are the false premise, it's what we've been taught that is the false premise. It's hard to swallow because we've all been taught otherwise.

I'm thinking about it this way: what if he's right? Doesn't that possibility mean that we have to understand his proposals and reasons from his perspective, and only then can we begin to accurately refute them? After all, one can't understand the depravity of Hitler, the cruelty of Stalin, and the craziness of Caligula if one doesn't read their own words and understand their actions from their own perspective. We understand why those men did what they did, but only because we've gone through that process.

Could it also be that the Propertarianism author is saying that he understands why people are doing what they are doing (rioting, looting, undermining our civilization, etc), and is thus making his case for separation from them?
If it's possible that we've been fooled by the media to hate the stuff I quoted, is it possible that we've been fooled by the media regarding the "rioting, looting, undermining our civilization"? Is it possible that some/many/most of the protests have been peaceful and didn't have any of that? Maybe we're focusing on a small group of people doing bad things in order to divert attention from the issue at hand? Why are you granting the benefit of the doubt to the media in one instance but not in the other?

I don't need to read Mein Kampf to understand the issues of Hitler. That's a false equivalency: there aren't always two sides to an issue. Their words do not matter because no combination of words can justify their actions. If one can demonstrate that the author's actions would lead to a more undemocratic, unfree society, then it doesn't matter the reason. It can be academic to read their words and understand how they came to their solution, but that's irrelevant in determining what is unjustified hate speech.
bosco7 wrote:the best method, the strongest method, is to try to disprove rather than prove. And when you are no longer able to disprove, then the hypothesis holds water. A lot of science research nowadays looks to prove rather than disprove, but that's another question and discussion.
Correct. That's pretty much the basis of modern science: peer-review. And I would like to add that any idea that is not falsifiable (not testable) should not even be acknowledged.
Aitrus wrote:
stilljammi wrote: And let's say we take out all that crazy fascist stuff, what are we left with? The answer is: pretty much what we have now. A weak federal government and strong local and state governments.
I don't think that this is what we currently have. I think we have a crazy-strong federal government, and a slightly less strong state government, and even less strong local government. I don't think that's what the Founders had in mind. Fascism is also strongly pro-government, this Propertarianism proposal seems to explicitly argue against that.

As for freedom of expression, Propertarians propose that freedom of truthful speech is what needs to be allowed, not freedom of any speech. Doing so would mean that the social conversations on issues would be made up of more truthfulness and data-based rather than half-truths and deception. I also like the part where media, politicians, and judges can be taken to court for violations of reciprocity - thus making our leaders more careful and mindful in their actions and words.

I do admit that a good deal of what they propose is hard to swallow. Here's my question: what's a better solution that can be achieved under the social conditions we now have? Or is it all just a futile exercise and we're just doomed to conflict sooner rather than later?
And who is the final arbiter of truthful speech? The government? Judges? Currently, you can say pretty much anything as long as it doesn't lead to demonstrable harm to someone else. If you can demonstrate that someone else's speech has hurt you, their speech is no longer free speech, but the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Under this society, that would be further constricted and would not even be enforcible. It would only lead to the arbiters legislating their tastes and there would be much more corruption.

Maybe you're right about the current balance of power between the federal gov and the states. Both in terms of laws and taxes, the federal government has much more power and resources to enforce compliance with both. That still doesn't lend any credence to the data, the conclusions, or the idea that it would solve any of our problems.

User avatar
Aitrus
Moderator
Posts: 2391
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 5:03 pm

Re: A movement that I've been keeping an eye on...

Post by Aitrus »

userque wrote:
Do you believe Blacks have a lower intelligence than Whites?

And do you believe a group of higher intelligence people are superior to a group of lower intelligence people?
Individually - no, Blacks don't necessarily have a lower intelligence than Whites. There are many Whites that are low IQ and many Blacks that are high IQ. However, the research and data that I've seen (some of which I shared previously in the thread) shows that Blacks - depending on the country you are looking at - have a lower bell curve of representative IQ scores. However, as Jones explained in Hive Mind in reference to research on the subject, this can begin to be addressed over several generations with improved nutrition and education - and these are cultural changes that take time to implement.

I also believe that the reverse comparison is true when comparing Asians and Whites, in that the Eastern Asian bell curve is higher than the White bell curve.

Now does that mean that a group of higher intelligence people are superior to a group of lower intellect? Yes - but only in matters dealing with intellect, because that is what we're measuring (and it's not wrong to say so - it's objectively correct to say so). Eastern Asians as a whole have a higher IQ than Whites, and so it stands to reason that they do better in areas where intellect is the determining factor - math, certain sciences, etc. And so on when comparing Whites and Blacks, or Eastern Asians and Blacks, etc. This is merely an objective statement, not a moral one, and should be viewed as such.

However, this conclusion says nothing about whether a Black person is more or less valuable as a human compared to a White person. I'm not saying that intelligence is the only determining factor when deciding if a group is superior to another. Each group has it's own strengths and weaknesses. Blacks, for example, are in some ways physically better than Whites - as evidenced by the number of Blacks in the NFL and NBA. They also tend to mature quicker physically than Whites - so any comparison where rate of physical maturation and race-wide physical abilities are the determining factor, Blacks would often win out.

No, I don't think it's possible to state that any race is superior to another because it's all relative. I do, however, think it's possible - and correct - to state that one culture is superior to another. The problem arises when people confuse culture with race.

What about you? Do you believe Blacks have a lower intelligence than Whites (or Eastern Asians, for that matter)?

And do you believe a group of higher intelligence people are superior to a group of lower intelligence people?

And do you believe that culture is inseparable from race, or do you view them as separate things?
Seasonal Musings 2022: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=19005
Recommended Reading: http://tspcenter.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13474
"It's not what happens to you, but how you react to it that matters" Epictetus

User avatar
bloobs
Posts: 1616
Joined: Tue May 21, 2019 8:00 pm

Re: A movement that I've been keeping an eye on...

Post by bloobs »

I think we all now have a very good idea where Aitrus stands on the matter of race and his vision for America. Thank you for your candor. It's better than than hiding it from us.

Frankly it is very disturbing to me.

However, there is nothing more to discuss really. He is who he is or has become. But trust me, I would not want you near me or my loved ones. Just saying.

User avatar
userque
Posts: 658
Joined: Mon May 05, 2014 5:43 pm

Re: A movement that I've been keeping an eye on...

Post by userque »

Aitrus wrote:Individually - no, Blacks don't necessarily have a lower intelligence than Whites. There are many Whites that are low IQ and many Blacks that are high IQ. However, the research and data that I've seen (some of which I shared previously in the thread) shows that Blacks - depending on the country you are looking at - have a lower bell curve of representative IQ scores. However, as Jones explained in Hive Mind in reference to research on the subject, this can begin to be addressed over several generations with improved nutrition and education - and these are cultural changes that take time to implement.

I also believe that the reverse comparison is true when comparing Asians and Whites, in that the Eastern Asian bell curve is higher than the White bell curve.

Now does that mean that a group of higher intelligence people are superior to a group of lower intellect? Yes - but only in matters dealing with intellect, because that is what we're measuring (and it's not wrong to say so - it's objectively correct to say so). Eastern Asians as a whole have a higher IQ than Whites, and so it stands to reason that they do better in areas where intellect is the determining factor - math, certain sciences, etc. And so on when comparing Whites and Blacks, or Eastern Asians and Blacks, etc. This is merely an objective statement, not a moral one, and should be viewed as such.

However, this conclusion says nothing about whether a Black person is more or less valuable as a human compared to a White person. I'm not saying that intelligence is the only determining factor when deciding if a group is superior to another. Each group has it's own strengths and weaknesses. Blacks, for example, are in some ways physically better than Whites - as evidenced by the number of Blacks in the NFL and NBA. They also tend to mature quicker physically than Whites - so any comparison where rate of physical maturation and race-wide physical abilities are the determining factor, Blacks would often win out.

No, I don't think it's possible to state that any race is superior to another because it's all relative. I do, however, think it's possible - and correct - to state that one culture is superior to another. The problem arises when people confuse culture with race.

What about you? Do you believe Blacks have a lower intelligence than Whites (or Eastern Asians, for that matter)?

And do you believe a group of higher intelligence people are superior to a group of lower intelligence people?

And do you believe that culture is inseparable from race, or do you view them as separate things?
Thanks for the detailed answer. I’ve noted your questions.

I recognized your caveats, and your previous assertion that your personal definition of racism requires ‘hate’ components--components that aren’t present in usual dictionary definitions.

That said and understood, aren’t the following itemized statements true, as they relate to your beliefs, with respect to the Oxford definition?

Oxford: “that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another.”

1. Generally, Blacks have lower intelligence, and are, therefore, inferior--intellectually--to Whites.
2. Believing Item 1 means you fit the dictionary definition of a racist.
"In the land of idiots, the moron is King."

User avatar
Aitrus
Moderator
Posts: 2391
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 5:03 pm

Re: A movement that I've been keeping an eye on...

Post by Aitrus »

stilljammi wrote:First off I'd like to say it's difficult being the only person on one side and 100 people on the other. I've been in that position online and in-person and it's not exactly fun, so I respect you for that Aitrus.
Thanks for the recognition on this point. On the upside, I think that this kind of environment does serve to make me a better debater and critical thinker, so it's not all bad.
If it's possible that we've been fooled by the media to hate the stuff I quoted, is it possible that we've been fooled by the media regarding the "rioting, looting, undermining our civilization"? Is it possible that some/many/most of the protests have been peaceful and didn't have any of that? Maybe we're focusing on a small group of people doing bad things in order to divert attention from the issue at hand? Why are you granting the benefit of the doubt to the media in one instance but not in the other?
Oh, I've no doubt that the majority of the protesters were peaceful. However, once the first bottle is thrown, the first shove given, the first verbal threat of violence issued - it's no longer peaceful. At that point, it's logical to assume that anybody who remains to continue such activity is a de-facto non-peaceful protestor. Those who remain but who didn't do the above actions...well, it's hard to say if they are simply innocent bystanders protesting, or if they support the behavior of those taking actual action.

For example, local to me there were mostly peaceful protesters, and a smaller fraction that turned violent. However, I also think that calls to abolish and/or defund he police are - in a very real way - asking for the enforcement of the rule of law to be abolished (or to at least severely hamper the enforcement of it). I consider that to be the bigger picture, which the media paints very well in a supportive manner, along with the leadership of that side of the aisle. Do you see it differently?
I don't need to read Mein Kampf to understand the issues of Hitler. That's a false equivalency: there aren't always two sides to an issue. Their words do not matter because no combination of words can justify their actions. If one can demonstrate that the author's actions would lead to a more undemocratic, unfree society, then it doesn't matter the reason. It can be academic to read their words and understand how they came to their solution, but that's irrelevant in determining what is unjustified hate speech.
I don't think it's a false equivalency. If we don't know why Hitler did what he did, then how can we avoid it in the future? Similarly, if we haven't read Mein Kampf or understood what fascism actually is, how can we justify the naming of right-wing individuals fascist without a shred of evidence? If we haven't read Mein Kampf and Marx, how can we say that what the Propertarians are proposing is along those same lines (which I don't think they are)?
And who is the final arbiter of truthful speech? The government? Judges? Currently, you can say pretty much anything as long as it doesn't lead to demonstrable harm to someone else. If you can demonstrate that someone else's speech has hurt you, their speech is no longer free speech, but the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Under this society, that would be further constricted and would not even be enforcible. It would only lead to the arbiters legislating their tastes and there would be much more corruption.
According to Propertarians, it's the courts through judge and jury, through the use of the scientific method via a series of falsehood tests. If It's impossible to determine "the truth", but it is possible to determine if what somebody said is false. If somebody - even judges themselves, the arbiter who legislates, and the media - says something in public about public matters that can be proved false in court via the scientific method, then they are held financially liable.
Maybe you're right about the current balance of power between the federal gov and the states. Both in terms of laws and taxes, the federal government has much more power and resources to enforce compliance with both. That still doesn't lend any credence to the data, the conclusions, or the idea that it would solve any of our problems.
True. Which is why I'm discussing it here. The Propertarians don't even know 100% if it would work, only that it would be a better thing than what we have now (constant social bickering, fighting, unfounded claims of racism, etc.).
Seasonal Musings 2022: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=19005
Recommended Reading: http://tspcenter.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13474
"It's not what happens to you, but how you react to it that matters" Epictetus

User avatar
Aitrus
Moderator
Posts: 2391
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 5:03 pm

Re: A movement that I've been keeping an eye on...

Post by Aitrus »

bloobs wrote:I think we all now have a very good idea where Aitrus stands on the matter of race and his vision for America. Thank you for your candor. It's better than than hiding it from us.

Frankly it is very disturbing to me.

However, there is nothing more to discuss really. He is who he is or has become. But trust me, I would not want you near me or my loved ones. Just saying.
I'm sorry that you've misread me, bloobs. I brought this topic - Propertarianism - to the board in order to explore it. I'm not saying I agree with it or not - just that it's thought-provoking and worth exploring to test for validity. I have no "vision for America", and my conclusions on race are reflective of scientific reality. Did you miss the part where I said that no race as a whole is superior to another, and that culture is separate from race?
Seasonal Musings 2022: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=19005
Recommended Reading: http://tspcenter.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13474
"It's not what happens to you, but how you react to it that matters" Epictetus

User avatar
Aitrus
Moderator
Posts: 2391
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 5:03 pm

Re: A movement that I've been keeping an eye on...

Post by Aitrus »

userque wrote:
Thanks for the detailed answer. I’ve noted your questions.

I recognized your caveats, and your previous assertion that your personal definition of racism requires ‘hate’ components--components that aren’t present in usual dictionary definitions.

That said and understood, aren’t the following itemized statements true, as they relate to your beliefs, with respect to the Oxford definition?

Oxford: “that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another.”

1. Generally, Blacks have lower intelligence, and are, therefore, inferior--intellectually--to Whites.
2. Believing Item 1 means you fit the dictionary definition of a racist.
Are you trying to twist what I said in an attempt to undermine my character instead of discussing the topic I brought up - namely Propertarianism?

1. And in general Whites are inferior - in the narrow realm of IQ - to East Asians. It's scientifically proven that different races have tendencies (not absolutes - just tendencies) toward or away from different qualities. That's a given (and to deny it is to deny reality, which renders any argument based on such denial as moot), and it is therefore not unreasonable to assume that one race is superior on individual, narrow topics / issues over others - and only in those aspects. It does not imply that such a conclusion is profession of a belief that any race as a whole is superior over another. To imply that someone who believes that a race is superior in one area is therefore superior in all areas (and is thus a racist) is logically false.

Using the above definition from Oxford, this Wikipedia page is "racist" because they note distinct characteristics and qualities between races: "People with Amerindian or East Asian or Southeast Asian or Middle East ancestry have thicker and straighter hair. The reason is because these populations have the Derived EDAR gene allele that is linked to thicker and straighter hair and shovel-shaped incisors."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hair

Merely noting racial differences is not racist.

2. No, it does not - at least by your insinuation. That definition implies that such belief is predicated on the believer adhering that a certain race is generally superior or inferior based on all characteristics, abilities, and qualities of the races involved. I'm not doing that. Noting that specific attributes make one race more suited for specific things does not imply racism, it reflects scientific reality. From the wikipedia page on epicanthic folds:

"The epicanthic fold is often associated with greater levels of fat deposition around the eyeball, a feature most accentuated in native North Siberian, Aleut and Inuit populations. The adipose tissue is thought to provide greater insulation for the eye and sinuses from the effects of cold, especially from freezing winds, and to represent an adaptation to cold climates. It has also been postulated that the fold itself might provide a level of protection from snow blindness. Though its appearance in peoples of Southeast Asia can be linked to possible descent from cold-adapted ancestors, its occurrence in various African peoples precludes a cold-adaptive explanation for it appearing in the latter groups. The epicanthic fold found in some African people has been tentatively linked to protection for the eye from the high levels of ultraviolet light found in desert and semi-desert areas." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicanthic_fold

The above implies that people with the fold are likely more adapted to cold environments and / or areas of intense sunlight - or said another way: superior - over people that do not have a similar feature. This is not a racist conclusion, it is a scientific one.

If this the definition you use, then it's one that means we are all "racists" - including you if you are honest with yourself.

Now, do you want to discuss Propertarianism - the reason I started this topic? Or continue to focus the discussion on my own belief of race - something which has no bearing on the topic?
Seasonal Musings 2022: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=19005
Recommended Reading: http://tspcenter.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13474
"It's not what happens to you, but how you react to it that matters" Epictetus

User avatar
userque
Posts: 658
Joined: Mon May 05, 2014 5:43 pm

Re: A movement that I've been keeping an eye on...

Post by userque »

Aitrus wrote:Are you trying to twist what I said in an attempt to undermine my character instead of discussing the topic I brought up - namely Propertarianism?
What did I twist? I don't believe I'm the one twisting here.

Race was part of this discussion prior to my entry:
stilljammi wrote:What a mess.

Their premise is that the left and its cities and culture have violated natural laws and are incompatible with the rest of America. The solution is to allow the left (and the right) to create its own states and governments in its lands and are barely answerable to any sort of federal law. No legislative or executive branch, judicial branch gains more power and ok's any federal laws. Eliminate the IRS and install a flat tax and sales tax. (A system that doesn't bring in revenue any better than the current system, and broken enough to allow for even more mass evasion. VAT is a better system.) Also, it doesn't explain how the national debt is going to be divided up and transferred under this new system. They want to nationalize a bunch of companies (Google, Facebook, insurance companies), nationalize all personal debt, eliminate interest and speculation, end labor unions. The healthcare model is surprisingly European, even though it criticizes it. There are some interesting observations about the problems of the education system, but they offer no practical 21st-century solutions.

On the surface (if you just watched the video), this entire system sounds like it was formed by antifederalists from the 1700s. A benign little conservative, entrepreneurial set of ideas.

Once you dig deeper, you realize this is racist, sexist, antisemitic trash straight from the depths of /pol/.

White Europeans are praised as superior, some races are of lower intelligence. It advocates for eugenics, involuntary paternity tests...lol. English only, no gay marriage, women have no place in politics, Muslims have contributed nothing. Interracial marriage is allowed, although it's incentivized to stay within your race.

There's much more vile stuff on the site, but I don't think it would be allowed to even be mentioned on this forum. And not even interesting stuff, just boring garden variety white supremacy with some complaints about federalism. Also, it's not well-written and not coherently organized.

:roll:
And [emphasis added]...
Aitrus wrote:
Bubba wrote: My main concern remains with a divided nation. Yes we are divided right now, but it takes (unfortunately) a tragedy to remind everyone that we're all the same, no matter what race or religion. People have forgotten that fact.

I was so sure that a thing like a pandemic would bring us together, sadly this health malady has been incorporated into politics and people are even further divided.
I'm not so sure that we are all the same, Bubba. The same under the law - yes, that's what "created equal" means. But I disagree that we're all created the same in terms of ability, IQ, temperment, etc. There are clear disparities by race, nationality, and more (see below attachments - the worldwide one is from Wikipedia, the other one is from a 10-year nationwide IQ study by Bureau of Labor Statistics). ...
And here's the final basis for my prior post [emphasis added]:
Aitrus wrote:Now does that mean that a group of higher intelligence people are superior to a group of lower intellect? Yes - but only in matters dealing with intellect, because that is what we're measuring (and it's not wrong to say so - it's objectively correct to say so).
After which I posted [emphasis added]:
userque wrote:Thanks for the detailed answer. I’ve noted your questions.

I recognized your caveats, and your previous assertion that your personal definition of racism requires ‘hate’ components--components that aren’t present in usual dictionary definitions.

That said and understood, aren’t the following itemized statements true, as they relate to your beliefs, with respect to the Oxford definition?

Oxford: “that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another.”

1. Generally, Blacks have lower intelligence, and are, therefore, inferior--intellectually--to Whites.
2. Believing Item 1 means you fit the dictionary definition of a racist.
To answer your question:
Aitrus wrote:Are you trying to twist what I said in an attempt to undermine my character instead of discussing the topic I brought up - namely Propertarianism?
Your character has nothing to do with me.

Enjoy your weekend.
"In the land of idiots, the moron is King."

User avatar
Aitrus
Moderator
Posts: 2391
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 5:03 pm

Re: A movement that I've been keeping an eye on...

Post by Aitrus »

Userque,
Yes, race was a part of the conversation prior to you arriving - but not as it pertains to my personal views, rather, as it relates to Propertarianism in general. So instead of discussing it within that context and in context with the evidence I provided, you chose to link it to me personally by questioning me about my views. Instead of discussing the idea, you discussed me - you deflected.

Later, you picked out a single instance of what I stated and used it to insinuate that it means I view an entire race as inferior, and that I'm therefore racist. I have said no such thing, but you seemed to insist that I did - i.e. twisting my words.

You're right, my character has nothing to do with you. You manage so show your character all on your own.

I hope you enjoy your Independence Day weekend as well.
Seasonal Musings 2022: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=19005
Recommended Reading: http://tspcenter.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13474
"It's not what happens to you, but how you react to it that matters" Epictetus

User avatar
userque
Posts: 658
Joined: Mon May 05, 2014 5:43 pm

Re: A movement that I've been keeping an eye on...

Post by userque »

Aitrus wrote:Userque,
Yes, race was a part of the conversation prior to you arriving - but not as it pertains to my personal views, rather, as it relates to Propertarianism in general. So instead of discussing it within that context and in context with the evidence I provided, you chose to link it to me personally by questioning me about my views. Instead of discussing the idea, you discussed me - you deflected.

Later, you picked out a single instance of what I stated and used it to insinuate that it means I view an entire race as inferior, and that I'm therefore racist. I have said no such thing, but you seemed to insist that I did - i.e. twisting my words.

You're right, my character has nothing to do with you. You manage so show your character all on your own.

I hope you enjoy your Independence Day weekend as well.
The whole thread was on personal views. Opinions, thoughts. Do I need to quote evidence?

You asked for everyone's thoughts. And you gave your personal thoughts. Do I need to quote evidence?

I asked questions regarding what you were saying about what your thoughts were. And you answered.

I never deflected. My questions remained on the same topic. Do I need to quote evidence?

Why would I have to deflect ... they were my questions to you.

I quoted you. It's a "single instance" because you only said it once ... as most people do when they talk. It wasn't taken out of context. It was what you exactly said, in the context that you said it. Do I need to quote evidence?

Again, quote where I twisted your words.

What I said you said, I quoted. Everything else, I asked. You either answered, or you, like before, ended the discussion.

Have you ever heard the phrase, "Quit while you're behind?"

I'm not going to let you spin this. Everyone has read for themselves what happened, and what you've said. Today, you're bs'ing me. Tomorrow, it could be one of them.

Had you simply admitted what's obvious, we could have moved on where you would have been surprised at my responses to your questions to me. But we never make to it the end of discussions.

Regardless, anyone can choose to not answer a question, but don't try blaming others for your not wanting to answer questions you opened the doors to. Third time this guy.

I respect someone more for saying, "Hey F-u; I aint gonna answer!" Versus how you like to play it.

Enjoy the 4th.
"In the land of idiots, the moron is King."

User avatar
stilljammi
Posts: 181
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2019 3:59 pm

Re: A movement that I've been keeping an eye on...

Post by stilljammi »

From: viewtopic.php?f=31&t=18031&start=90#p86689
userque wrote:You said most of the last paragraph in response to my asking Aitrus about being a racist.

In light of the today's discussions, and the definition of racism, I was curious as to how you feel today about the exact same above topic.

I understand if you don't want to answer ... I'm getting used to that sort of response.
At the risk of sounding condescending to Aitrus, I don't think he realized the roots of that "movement" and he was kind of forced into defending a set of ideas that went way deeper. No person in their right mind would willingly defend a movement with that much baggage. But IMO, it's fair game to criticize those ideas and it's reasonable to question the reasons why someone would support that. As stated previously, it's good to know where exactly people stand. I was indeed the one who brought up many of the horrible and racist ideas of that movement in that thread because it was entirely relevant. No other group is calling for what they are calling for, there's a reason for that. Their solutions are based on those faulty and racist ideas.

When you call someone a racist, the discussion usually ends right there. When you criticize someone's ideas racist, you can get a bit further. I'm really interested in understanding why we view something like the "Propertarianism" as racist. I'm interested in the exact reasons why racism is bad for our society. I think a lot of people pointed that out quite effectively. I pointed out in the other thread why the fact that Whites have attempted to hold Blacks down as a permanent underclass is being ignored.

Now the next logical question would be: can someone support the above line of thinking without being a racist? Can an otherwise moral and logical person support the movement in that other thread? That's something that deserves its own thread.

User avatar
Aitrus
Moderator
Posts: 2391
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 5:03 pm

Re: A movement that I've been keeping an eye on...

Post by Aitrus »

Userque, you do have a point. I'll concede that the entire thread is about both Propertarianism and my views as well, and you weren't trying to undermine me by asking me about my views. I apologize for suggesting it. I did bring it up, and continued the conversation along those lines without doing my utmost to bring it back to Propertarianism itself.

But I'm still confused by your hostility toward me on this. I still fail to see why you think I'm a racist when all I'm doing is applying scientific conclusions to reality. If you disagree with the science, fine - let's have that discussion. But if you agree with the science and merely disagree following where the data leads, then that's on you and not me. Or maybe you have a problem with my use of the word "superior". Maybe a better phrasing could be "more capable" or "better suited" or "more or less prone to producing individuals".

Take some time and listen to this man's take on race and IQ, and since he's a Psychology professor at Toronto University I would say that he knows what he's talking about. He even states an example - Ashkenazi Jews, and their higher average IQ of 110 to 115 - to make a point about how IQ and race manifests in the world. He also points out - just as I did in our discussion earlier - that different individual attributes about a person / race have nothing to do with the value of that person or race. You seemed to gloss over that part, and zeroed in on the mere fact of noting differences in race - such as IQ. The first part is a lot of detail about IQ tests themselves, so I'd suggest that you start watching at 13:10 to see the portion I'm talking about. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h02w5E7FGlY

Here's a professor at the University of California: "Race and ethnicity account for a substantial share of test-score variance after controlling for family income and education."
Source, view at 35:43: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3lZe2OTBfQ

Here's a podcast between Sam Harris - a philosopher and PhD neuroscientist from University of California, and Charles Murray - PhD in political science from MIT, and the author of The Bell Curve, a book covering the relationship between race and IQ. They discuss in depth the relationship between race and IQ - including that race is malleable and one must still interact with an individual on his/her own specific abilities (something I have never disagreed with, rather, something I wholeheartedly support). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YfEoxU82us

Now do you see where I get my understanding of the relationship between race and IQ from? There's tons of science to back it up. It exists.

Now as to the other questions I've asked before in this thread: can Propertarianism be viewed as a viable solution if the racial background and overtones can be taken out of it? If it's based entirely on solving cultural / social disagreements, can it be a solution to what we're facing as a society?
Seasonal Musings 2022: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=19005
Recommended Reading: http://tspcenter.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13474
"It's not what happens to you, but how you react to it that matters" Epictetus

Locked

Fund Prices2024-03-28

FundPriceDayYTD
G $18.15 0.05% 1.05%
F $19.08 -0.06% -0.74%
C $82.21 0.11% 10.55%
S $82.43 0.30% 6.92%
I $42.57 -0.24% 5.95%
L2065 $16.38 0.02% 8.37%
L2060 $16.39 0.02% 8.38%
L2055 $16.39 0.02% 8.38%
L2050 $32.73 0.01% 6.95%
L2045 $14.91 0.02% 6.58%
L2040 $54.38 0.02% 6.22%
L2035 $14.34 0.02% 5.79%
L2030 $47.67 0.02% 5.38%
L2025 $13.15 0.03% 3.43%
Linc $25.61 0.03% 2.82%

Live Charts

Pending Allocations

Under development. For now, you may view Pending Allocations by going to "fantasy TSP" and selecting "Leaderboard sort" of "Pending Allocations".