VickyCaramel wrote: ↑Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:59 pm
Steersman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 07, 2018 1:27 pm
<snip>
And why do you think "the alt-right is wrong even if those differences exist"? Maybe because, as I've argued, many on the alt-right think that those differences apply to ALL members of the different races? That, for instance, all whites are more intelligent than all blacks?
I was trying to answer this when the site crashed.
Hope you didn't lose any of what you had written - can be extremely frustrating when that happens, for one reason or another.
However, while you've apparently "bought into race realism", I'm not entirely sure you've answered the question "why the alt-right is wrong", particularly related to my surmise. Of maybe some related interest or as a point of reference, the
Wikipedia article on the topic which, somewhat uncharacteristically for them, seems off-kilter in disputing the concept of races and the idea that there can be differences, in general, between them:
Scientific racism (sometimes race realism, human biodiversity, race biology or racial biology is the pseudoscientific belief that empirical evidence exists to support or justify racism (racial discrimination), racial inferiority, or racial superiority; alternatively, it is the practice of classifying individuals of different phenotypes or genotype into discrete races. Historically it received credence in the scientific community, but is no longer considered scientific.
While discrimination is, generally, untenable, differences between groups, on average, seems pretty much of a slam dunk. The problem though seems to arise in sloppy use of language as, for example, in the interview of Damore & his lawyer by Tucker Carlson and by someone else in a second segment. While the interviewer in the latter case did eventually genuflect in the direction of averages - the crux of Damore's argument - he also had said earlier [@ about 9:13] "perhaps they [women] weren’t up to snuff with respect to the rigors of working in Silicon Valley at the upper echelons". Which seems kind of to allude to an argument that ALL women aren't "up to snuff" which is generally untenable, although it might be moot just what scenarios the interviewer had in mind with his "upper echelons".
But really kind of problematic comparing groups and individuals as the terms applicable to the first one generally aren't to the second one. For instance, while it is perfectly clear and entirely justified to say that woman A is taller or shorter than man B, it is more than a bit obscure to say, in referring to groups and as is frequently said, that men are taller than women: height is an attribute of individuals but not of groups. Conflating the two tends to cause no end of problems and unnecessary animosity.
VickyCaramel wrote: ↑Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:59 pm
I'm not losing the argument against race realism because I bought into it some time in the early 1990s. Back in the early 90s, the British National Party had become an early adopter of the internet and you could even go have an argument with Nick Griffin in their chat room... which was your best option because the rest of them tended to be knuckle dragging, out-and-out Nazis. They were pushing the race realism then, throwing out crime figures, they were also saying that "THE" Jews controlled the banks, Hollywood and the media.... and the truth is they aren't wrong on any of these things.
Certainly more than some justification, as argued, for "buying into race realism", but saying it's not wrong to claim that "THE Jews controlled the banks etc." looks a bit iffy, kind of like a very questionable conspiracy theory. That, for instance, presuambly there are many Jews who are in "the banks, Hollywood and the media" is hardly justification for arguing or suggesting, apparently, that there's some sort of collusion taking place that is antithetical to the best interests of society in general. Seems rather akin to the "Patriarchy!!11!!" "theory", both of which are apparently cases of
reification - like the "invisible hand" of Adam Smith. Many groups can give the appearance, and maybe even the effects, of communication and collusion, but frequently that's due more to simple self-interest as with Smith.
VickyCaramel wrote: ↑Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:59 pm
Frankly, not much has changed. My experience is that rather than ex-army tattooed skinhead thugs, the foot soldiers (Comment section stormtroopers) of the Alt-Right tend to be 15 year old boys whose spelling is even worse. However they do know where to find all the race realism information and present it in the form of meme graphics. This is a rather effective tactic in so much as it helps them spread awareness of the 'problems'. But what hasn't changed is that the Far-Right still don't have any answers which are workable or palatable, unless you think, "We are just going to pay them to leave, we won't gas anyone, honestly we won't" is bankable.
"spreading awareness of the problems" seems half the battle, and well worth doing even if some of the solutions suggested may not be entirely "workable or palatable". But while I haven't delved too much into the specific platform planks of the Alt-Right, much less the of Far-Right cohort, I kind of think it depends on which "tribe" is deemed most problematic in any given situation. As mentioned before, you might check out the Wikipedia articles on the history of deportations, notably those of
Muslims from Greece in 1923, and of
Mexicans from the US in the 1930s, the latter being somewhat less credible or justified than the former.
VickyCaramel wrote: ↑Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:59 pm
If you want to get ahead of the curve, you need to talk about how creating an ethnostate within the US is a fucking absurd idea. All this, "they can have California and we'll have Wyoming" bullshit is complete pie in the sky. These people are less numerous but no less ridiculous than the anarcho-capitalists and we are not going out of our way to confront them.
Frankly, the alt-right is still fringe and I can't see them playing any role on the future no matter how things play out.
The right with a fringe on top. :-) As the old joke has it, like the cat who had run away from the vet with a needle still stuck in its ear - a furry with a syringe on top ... :rimshot:
But agree about "absurd idea", though I think there's some justification for working with them - at least they recognize & promote the idea that there is a problem in the first place. Accentuate the positive and all that.
VickyCaramel wrote: ↑Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:59 pm
Kirbmarc wrote: ↑Sun Jan 07, 2018 3:45 pm
DrokkIt wrote: ↑
Steersman wrote: ↑
<snip>
And why do you think "the alt-right is wrong even if those differences exist"? Maybe because, as I've argued, many on the alt-right think that those differences apply to ALL members of the different races? That, for instance, all whites are more intelligent than all blacks?
For my two penneth worth, I'd say they are wrong because they are (deliberately in many cases) conflating a scientific
is with a moralistic
ought.
You can demonstrate to me that group X are more intelligent than group Y. You cannot demonstrate to me that therefore X should have dominion over Y or avoid them altogether, especially if this dictate supersedes my own individual choice (i.e. "you are doing whiteness wrong by associating with black people).
In my view this is to do with the ideas and principles they espouse, and not with the pragmatic situation of immigration and cultural tension.
This. ....
You are still barking up the wrong tree. Their argument isn't that they should have dominion over another tribe, it is that they should be separate.
Their argument isn't that tribalism is a moral good, but that it is an inevitable fact that needs to be dealt with -- and that multiculturalism is pretty unnatural and is proven to fail no matter how strong your argument that it is a moral good. You would very quickly find yourself on the defensive if you try this route.
Question then is whether there's any justification to claim "multiculturalism is pretty unnatural". Just tarring all tribes with the same brush - saying that none of them "play well with others" - doesn't seem particularly tenable. Seems predicated on a rather superficial analysis - one that is only skin deep, so to speak.
However, to kind to reiterate a previous argument and to address Drokkit directly, I think it is obscure and fuzzy-thinking at best, and more likely a trap for the unwary and a pretext for those with an axe to grind, to say that "group X are more intelligent that group Y". Individual A can be more intelligent than individual B - and they may even come from different racial groups. But groups generally don't exhibit intelligence - that's an attribute of individuals, not groups. Better to emphasize that difference by saying of groups that the
average intelligence of group A is higher or lower than that of group B - and the fact of that matter is that the difference in averages is generally very much less than that within any group - as Harris and many others have said repeatedly though, apparently, to little effect.
"Shoddy and inept application of words" and all that. :-)
VickyCaramel wrote: ↑Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:59 pm
DrokkIt wrote: ↑
I think they also have an issue around what white *is and isn't*. It's very easy to look at a black dude and mate a categorical judgement about his race, but for a huge amount of people this isn't true.
Also yes re: naturalistic fallacy, loads of arguments from there. Reminds me of the "Black ways of knowing" bullshit about firing lightning form fingers.
This isn't an issue for them at all. They are quite prepared to say that they will give the benefit of the doubt to anyone who is in question.
If they had a colour chart and were only 'removing' the blackest of the black, it is win for them. If they remove only anyone who is easy to categorize then they have got 99% of what they want. (They can worry about the Quadroons further down the road).
The only damage you can do them with this line is to cause them infighting over when and where they will draw the line, but it isn't as if the hardcore Nazis are movers and shakers in the alt-Right.... i suspect many of them are just shitposters.
Sure seems highly problematic, at best, to be thinking that a person's skin colour, or any distinguishing attribute of any "race" for that matter, uniquely or categorically correlates with any particular set of values - good, bad, or indifferent. Presumably it is those values which are more likely to determine whether the corresponding cultures can "play well with others" or not.