Search Box

Friday, May 12, 2017

The nature of "hate"

I just happened to stumble across this picture of Middlebury students turning their backs to the podium where Charles Murray was supposed to have delivered his speech a couple months ago:

You'll notice the sign protesting the "hate" speech. Murray is deemed a "hater" because of his book, The Bell Curve, in which he acknowledged, in a couple of its roughly 900 pages, that intelligence has a genetic basis, and that there are, on average, differences between the races.

The idea that mentioning an obvious fact makes one a "hater" is one of the more ridiculous propositions that the Left promotes.

I know that men are, on average, physically stronger than women. This doesn't mean I hate women. And I'm well aware that blacks are, on average, more naturally talented at sprinting than whites are. This doesn't mean I hate whites.

In fact, the very idea of that emotion being sparked by either of those differences in ability seems absurd.

I'm also aware that whites, on average, have higher IQs than blacks; this doesn't mean I hate blacks. To hate a group of people based on their average IQ would be downright silly. The vast majority of my personal interactions with blacks are positive; in fact, as I've noted before, when blacks are friendly, it usually seems more genuine than when whites are.

True hatred is an intense, extremely personal emotion. It usually implies a bitter grudge which has grown over time, and is usually based on a series of unpleasant incidents. Or, perhaps, one big betrayal. It would be awfully hard to muster that emotion for someone with whom you've had no personal contact.

For example, I have never -- to my knowledge -- met an Australian aborigine. So the idea that I could somehow bear a grudge against them all on the basis of knowing their IQs average in the 60's seems awfully farfetched.

Here's another way to look at it: if I hate people simply for having low IQ's, wouldn't that imply that I love people with high IQ's -- and that the smarter they are, the more I love them?

As someone who went to Harvard and worked at Goldman Sachs, I can assure you -- with 100% certainty -- that this is not the case.

What's really going on here is projection. I've pointed out previously that sociopaths have accused me of being sociopathic, Aspies have accused me of having Aspergers, and gays have accused me of being gay. It's also true that decent people generally think the best of others, whereas sociopaths tend to think the worst.

In much the same manner, many on the Left assume that because they are filled with rage and resentment, their opposite numbers must be the same. So they accuse those on the Right of being "haters." Even worse, they label any sort of realism "hatred."

I think I can speak for most on the Right when I say I reserve my hatred for liars and hypocrites -- like those who lie about race, advocate policies based on those lies, and call the truth "hatred."


Anonymous said...

Don't some on the right also disbelieve in racial differences? Namely the very religious ones who don't believe in evolution?

I think you are a libertarian, not a conservative or "on the right" at least in the sense used in Asian politics.


John Craig said...

Ga --
I've called myself a libertarian in the past but the actual Libertarian Party in this country is pretty screwy, advocating things like open borders, so I've stopped calling myself that. I'm not wild about the idea that you have to fit into a certain set of beliefs, I prefer to take my positions cafeteria-style. As far as Asian politics, they haven't been infected with the virus of political correctness.

Some Republicans don't dwell on matters of IQ, or are uninformed about the subject (easy to be, since the media rarely mention it these days, and then only to castigate those who are aware of the differences). As far as the people who don't believe in evolution, I can't speak for them. But it's the Left itself which doesn't believe in the RESULT of evolution, our actual, *real* diversity, so to speak.

Anonymous said...

So one has a honest reason for disbelieving in racial differences (they are creationists), the other doesn't but has no excuse (since they believe in evolution). So the biggest difference is hypocrisy and inconsistency. If you deny racial differences because you are a bible thumper, you are just taking one of your core beliefs to its logical conclusions. The other has a serious case of cherry picking what to believe.

A similar story about "eugenics":
The "new" meaning has become quite popular with angry kids who like to troll videos of people with disabilities and stalk their families. In the past I tried replying to them on youtube even explaining what actual eugenics were. I gave up after my comments were ignored since they were too boring, the one's replied to were from SJWs who were easy bait often saying "how dare you! you monster! KYS!" while I was saying "well, here is why I think that is bullshit".

There was a disease I read about someone on reddit has, he lives normally, but the medicine costs 600,000 USD a year. He will cost 10x more in his entire life unless he makes a high enough salary than a single person with severe autism or down syndrome in a group home. Does that mean I believe he should be killed? No, but no mention from those trolls. They are playing out a fantasy of being "edgy" against people they just don't like (the mentally disabled). The Nazis had a different attitude, if you had a disorder that would cost the government too much, you were dead even if you could live a normal life. They had a goal, the did something to accomplish it even if it was a deplorable act, it doesn't piss me off like the same way a troll of SJW could.

Like with the denial of racial differences in the left and right, one is hypocritical and a double standard based on the rants of angry young adults and a fantasy of being crusaders going against the norm, (SJWs believe white people have plenty of negative racial traits but pretend other races have none), the other is not personal or based on some fantasy ideology, just a regular fantasy (creationism).


John Craig said...

Ga --
The last sentence of your first paragraph sums up today's liberalism quite nicely.

The people you seem to be describing as "eugenicists" aren't really such, they're just trolls. "Eugenics" has become a dirty word, thanks partly to how the Nazis implemented their policies, but it shouldn't be. The idea that one would try to improve the stock of a country is basically a commonsensical one. And the idea that one wold ignore the dysgenic effect of one's immigration policies, and just happily lower the average IQ of one's country is, at heart, crazy. But, if you say that, people will call you a Nazi.

Anonymous said...

People can't agree on what the word "eugenics" means. Like the word "go", which has 500 different dictionary definitions. There is one definition out there I take it that doesn't include wanting to hack to death or encouraging suicide in people with disabilities or inheritable health problems like the trolls do.

I am for encouraging good health and providing benefits for the well educated and accomplished to have children, which they often have trouble since their lives are much busier. They tend to also have children later when they are more financially secure increasing the risk of harmful genetic mutations from aging, so providing some financial support like they do in Sweden for parenting helps. Although inbreeding even among the genetically healthy can lead to new problems.

I don't think there needs to be some enforced registry, it would only lead to rebellion anyway, nor should people be treated like cattle, but rather implementing policies to let things fix themselves. Like with population control, they found out vaccinating children of families greatly reduces the chance of having excessive amounts of children, and I also hear there was a TV show in Brazil where they portrayed a women having only one or two children and female fans of that show decided to have fewer children. Or how introducing a little over a dozen wolves into some American forest had a chain reaction of improving the ecosystem there by a huge magnitude. We just gotta find the right things to plant.


John Craig said...

Ga --
Yes, eugenics doesn't have to be forcibly implemented. It can be done the way Lee Kuan Yew did it in Singapore, simply by encouraging the educated to reproduce more, which is essentially what you're saying.

Mark Caplan said...

Liberals do acknowledge that American blacks on average are cognitively deficient. The education gap is one of liberals' prime concerns. What else could an education gap be but a difference in cognitive ability between whites and blacks? It's just that liberals ascribe the gap to institutionalized racism, the "soft bigotry of low expectations," the legacy of slavery, and Donald Trump. Also, that blacks disproportionately ingest metals such as lead in drinking water, soil, and, in the case of ghetto blacks with extensive Old Masters collections, paint dust.

Here's a surprising fact from 2008, published in the Houston Chronicle:

"Nigerian immigrants [to the U.S.] have the highest levels of education in this city [Houston] and the nation, surpassing whites and Asians, according to Census data bolstered by an analysis of 13 annual Houston-area surveys conducted by Rice University."

"Nigerians the Most Educated in U.S."

Though The Unz Review is the home of the brilliant race realist Steve "iSteve" Sailer, it also publishes articles from time to time that attempt to discredit the theory that black Africans in Africa have abysmally low IQs. The articles don't refer to IQ measurements directly, rather they cite some intellectual achievement of sub-Saharan black Africans (say, an exceptional ability at winning at Scrabble), and then argue that that high level of achievement is incompatible with their having a low IQ.

John Craig said...

Mark --
Every now and then you hear about Africans who do well. The Ibo tribe of Nigeria (Biafra) are supposed to be particularly intelligent. But education level and IQ are two separate things, especially in the era of affirmative action. But AA aside, one reflects ambition and the other intelligence; and whole those two qualities have a positive correlation, it's a far from perfect correlation.

I did see that Scrabble headline on Unz, but didn't read the article. Occasionally you'll hear about inner city chess teams which do well, too. Who knows, maybe it proves something; but it certainly doesn't outweigh the IQ statistics, or the national results on SATs, etc.

Anonymous said...

If the word "eugenics" now means something else, we should just come up with a new term, but it will backfire eventually.
I hate how people use "words" against you. Like "You are making me angry." "Nah ah ah, you can never make someone angry!" (And this person knows exactly what you mean, but found a way around confronting you using the fluidity of human language)

So you can't say eugenics since the meaning has changed too much that it will be used against anyone who tries to use an older definition.

Hell people should stop and think "Okay, from the context of this conversation upon seeing this strange word, what does this guy really mean? Does the word's meaning come from its literal components from the year 2017 or earlier? Is there some nuance lost in translation?", and remain a bit skeptical when they find that strange word. Is there an egg in eggplant? No. Like the fact "autistic psychopathy" is now thrown around by internet trolls who don't understand "psychopathieren" had a different meaning back then.

Eugenics. Meaning literally "good genetics" in it's older sense has a meaning that is closer to what it literally is composed of. Now somehow it means whatever "they" define it as. SJWs, or anyone who is so literalminded or not literal enough, will protest anything if it sounds bad. Like how saying "man your weapons" is sexist even though the word "man" is from Latin "manus" or hands. Language shouldn't shape human thought, human thought shapes language.

"Racism" 200-300 years ago used to mean the belief that each race has distinct traits, now it means discrimination based on race. So they invented a new word "racialism" which now is starting to refer to scientific racism rather than old fashion prejudice. Now "-ism" is morphing as a suffix to imply discrimination. So some idiot in the year 2200 will look at the word "patriotism" or "confuciucism and think it means hating patriots or Confucious, and more crap. Maybe the world would be better unless you were required to be able to learn an earlier version of your language like a second tongue before touching an older book. No reading anything from the 18th century unless you were fluent in 18th century English.


John Craig said...

Ga --
Actually I'd say just the opposite has happened with the definition of "racism." I think it used to mean discrimination on the basis of race, and now the definition has been expanded to include any sort of realistic talk about racial differences. In other words, the truth is now "racist." (As well as "hateful," as I pointed out on this post.)

Anonymous said...

you need to put out a "donate" or PAYPAL button, dear Mister Craig.

I am getting tired of saying "I LIKE MISTER CRAIG'S WORK" so repetitively (and talk is cheap, and people are liars, and I myself am manipulative, all of which somewhat undercuts for me the joy of giving compliments)...

but if I (and I bet many others) could just SILENTLY kick you two dollars, three dollars, five dollars (I am poor, no job today, never worked for Goldman Sachs, so, you would only get lunch money from me and not a beach house) on the occasions when you have pleased us, and then you accepted it happily...this would I THINK tend to elevate mutual respect and sincerity within the group...

I bet many of your readers feel the same way.

You could even put a little note by the donate button, "I am not asking for any money, but, some of my readers insisted."

And it would be the plain truth.


John Craig said...

Thank you for that thought, but I'm not going to put my hand out, at least for now. If I did, it would put a whole different cast on the blog, and the amount of money I would make wouldn't really be worth it. Plus, I steal photographs on a regular basis, and while I know that's common practice on the internet, if some photographer wanted to get sticky about it, it'd be a whole lot easier to sue me if I was using their work "for profit."

Anyway, as tired as you get of saying that you like my work, I never tire of hearing it, so I'll just insist that you and the other readers continue to pay me in compliments. (My ego is a ravenous creature whose hunger is never entirely sated.)

Fled The Undertow said...

Hey GA,

The scourge of egalitarianism only infiltrated the Church in recent history. Christians in generations before us had always accepted obvious differences between the races, and many of us in this generation do as well. I think societal pressure on mainstream Christianity to accept this equality nonsense, coupled with shrinking congregations (and offering dollars) in a post-Christian nation forced church leaders to cave. Hence this "all races are equal" garbage, accepting homosexuality as legitimate, etc that would have church forefathers rolling in their graves.

LBD said...

I worked for many years for a government social service related agency. A large part of my job was accepting and reviewing forms that the participants were supposed to complete before coming in. The recipients' behavior broke along lines which precisely correlated with aggregate IQ strata.

Blacks: frequently late or missed appointments, rarely had their forms completed. Many were hostile but many treated our appointments as social occasions, and deliberately omitted paperwork to prolong the appointment, which they seemed to enjoy as an outing.

Hispanics: usually on time or a few minutes late; always respectful.

Vietnamese: always on time or ten minutes early, paperwork usually complete.

Chinese: usually no English ( most were elderly) but would arrive at least a half hour early with paperwork meticulously completed with copies of all supporting documents.

Stereotypes do not arise from nowhere.

John Craig said...

LBD --
It's interesting how people like you come by your beliefs from having long term exposure to reality, in your case in the form of a government job, and liberals come to their beliefs from having been indoctrinated in college and then believing what the media tells them.

LBD said...

I was a nice naive liberal like all the other Urban Studies graduates. It didn't take me years, just two weeks after starting my job at Dystopia Agency I was reading conservative magazines and discovered Thomas Sowell. Fortunately I was able to convince my husband as well, since three and a half decades of marriage would have been considerably more difficult had he stayed where we both were intellectually and politically. It helped that he grew up in a socialist environment and understood the issues. Now we are alt right (or as we describe it, "slightly to the right of the Sheriff of Nottingham")

I attribute the speed of my turnaround to a high IQ (Mensa member since age 14). It doesn't take beating me over the head with a hammer for me to "get it". Also, my ethnic background is Ashkenazi Jewish and Irish--intelligent from the Jewish side, pugnacious enough not to care about what the libtards think from the Irish side.

When I left the agency, I had to attend an "exit interview" (they were all the rage in management at the time). I sincerely thanked my manager for the opportunity to become a conservative; without my job experience I might have remained a liberal. That was unique in his experience.

John Craig said...

LBD --
Well you're a quicker study than most.

I'm going to have to confess to a sneaking sympathy for Robin Hood here, though perhaps that's just a result of swallowing Hollywood's version of things (and things were a little different back then than they are now).

Pugnacious and smart -- well, you took the best from each side. You could always have gotten your politics from the Jewish side and your IQ from the Irish side. (I was astonished when I first heard that the average IQ in Ireland is only 95; I've always liked most of the Irish people I've known, though, as a group I guess they never contributed as much as the English.)

LBD said...

Mom was an outlier-- definitely way to the right of the bell curve and mean as a rattlesnake. Definition of Irish Alzheimers'? You forget everything but your grudges.

Oscar Wilde was Irish, as was Jonathan Swift. Lots of Irish achievers but tend to be in the arts side of life.

John Craig said...

LBD --
Ha, hadn't heard that one.

As was James Joyce, and as was Georg Bernard Shaw. Lots of literary figures, but they didn't have the scientists and industrialists and explorers and so on. As you say, on the arts side.

Anonymous said...

The annoying thing about these protester kinds especially who are tumblrina types, is the occasion they are correct, since a broken clock is right twice a day, they ruin it.

If a legitimate racist holocaust denier who believes black people should be shipped off to africa or exterminated along with the Jews was invited as a public speaker, someone who really is a hate monger and lunatic, these protestors would only feed his success. Would they think of a way to actually do something against that guy? No, they would only turn people away or cause people already there to desert the fight. They would make encourage the public to side with the guy, and many angry young boys are.

This is a reason why trolls are winning the internet, attempts to do something about them are compromised by these uninvited allies. There have been numerous youtube or reddit comment sections where a bunch of trolls brigade, and then you have the tumblrinas come in who say "how dare you! you monster, KYS!" instead of ignoring them or trying to make a reasonable reply trying to prove them incorrect to bore them into leaving and prevent more people from joining in on the circlejerk.

Keep in mind "trolls" nowadays are not the same as they were a decade ago, they used to go around like lone wolves trying to make people annoyed and angry for fun with no hidden motives, now they are the angry ones going in huge groups whose goal isn't to annoy or disrupt an already ongoing discussion for mischief, but to flood that area and upvote eachother like a brigade until only their comments can be seen to get across their angry young boy rants. If SJWs are angry young girls who disrupt in large groups in real life, these trolling types, often from 4chan and encyclopedia dramatica are angry young boys disrupting on the internet, they are weird antisocial justice warriors.

Unfortunetly the tumblrinas come in, acting vulnerable and trying to guilt them and attack them for being so mean, which doesn't work since many trolling rings, the big ones who do stuff like post child pornography on a memorial page for a deceased person or spam comment sections of videos of autistic children or that incident with the minecraft server, the big angry groups, are headed by sociopathic/narcissistic people and people who follow them, instead of telling them reasonably why they're full of bullshit or ignoring them.

They are some of the best unofficial allies for actual hate spewers or charlatans since they compromise the battle against them. I would hope the social justice warriors and antisocial justice warriors would fight eachother enough to destroy eachother, but that isn't going to happen, conversely, I can imagine these internet trolling types also compromise people they agree with they get involved with, like imagine there is a reasonable internet forum thread started for discussing legitimate eugenic policies like in singapore, then they pop in and start blabbering about killing all the "tards" and claim to be best buds with the speaker who doesn't know them at all, he will have lost any chance of demonstrating his position because of uninvited "help", then they would take over the entire site. SJWs do something like this in real life.

The internet is in some ways worse to be attacked because peoples private info is there to be hacked, a person can attack anonymously and find out all the information, drain another person's bank account, or harass them, yet go undiscovered. In real life, you have to be there in person and get seen in public so you have a better chance of getting arrested if you try anything harmful, but it can be worse since they will have their voices heard on the news more likely and treated with more "respect" since there is a combination of courage and recklessness needed to not hide behind a screen and firewall.


John Craig said...

Ga --
When was the last time a Holocaust denier or someone who advocates shipping blacks back to Africa was invited to speak at a college?

I don't go to a lot of the sites you describe, so was unaware that their comment sections are now dominated by trolls. I suppose I'm lucky that I've only had a few trolls on this blog. I'v generally found that the best way to disarm them is to just calmly and patiently pick their arguments apart, or just to point out that they seem incapable of logical argument, and can only call names. And I'm not even sure that some of the people who've lashed out at me on this site are even trolls, many are just ordinary liberals whom I've angered by being honest about issues they feel one should not be honest about.

A big part of the problem with "hate" -- on both sides -- is that it's too easy to extrapolate from the behavior of a few to the many. For instance, the average black person has experienced all sorts of subtle racism in his life: people who cross the street to avoid them, the phony overly friendly behavior of liberals, etc. And it's too easy to go from that annoyance to hating all white people. Likewise, the average white person is annoyed by the hypocrisy of a media which gives a huge amount of attention to white on black crimes but by and large ignores the far more commonplace black on white crimes, and by the hypocrisy of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and Barack Obama, etc. And it's too easy to move from that annoyance to a hatred of all black people, which is equally misplaced. It actually takes some self-discipline to avoid those eyes of hatred, and many lack that self discipline.

Anonymous said...

The holocaust denier idea was an extreme example, if one did get invited hypothetically the tumblrinas would ruin everything, make it even worse.

And the reason for the few trolls is because you did what you did, pick apart their arguments and not feed them. Unfortunately, on more public sites unlike a personal blog, the SJWs can ride in like cavalry and...make the trolls wins, you can imagine the original posters trying their best to stand their ground groan as this "help" arrives. The occasions where I am caught in an invasion, I can't help but get so irritated when they post something so stupid when there was a ton of stupid bullshit the troll said they could exploit or pick apart, even turn against them.

Like back in elementary school for a group quiz, I'm sure we all have memories like this, there would that one kid who keeps answering stubbornly and he or she didn't study. You will be given points based on each group and whichever table wins gets candy. Everyone in your table keeps raising their hand but the teacher keeps picking that one guy to answer, she asks "Are there more grains of sand in a sandbox, or stars in the universe?" "More grains of sand exist, I can only see a few stars!" "Minus 3 points!" and your whole group just wants to bang their heads against your desk. Except the SJWs may outnumber the people they've come to "rescue" which makes it even worse.

Judging a group of people by a few may have been evolutionary sound 100,000 years ago when we were living in groups of less than a hundred, and you would be a days walk from the nearest group. It backfires in the modern world which has become so much smaller, and now you will be dealing with groups each numbering millions.

Added to that is people form arbitrary groups like fat acceptance, neurodiversity, gay pride parading, who claim to speak for all people who share that one feature with them, then everyone assumes everyone with that feature is like them. There is the "autistic we" I keep seeing that I can't stand. No more Ted talks for me that's for sure. These groups always say "we" not "I". Not just them, I keep seeing more "we" everywhere. What happened to individuality? Someone once said the individual is the most important minority.


John Craig said...

Ga --
"The individual is the most important minority" -- I like that.

And yes, it's too easy to extrapolate from gay pride parading to all gay people, etc.

Anonymous said...

Great piece, but let me venture a criticism. You say you don't have any more love for high-IQ people that low-IQ people, and suggest it may even be the opposite. But in a comment you call it crazy to allow immigration to lower the average IQ of a country. What makes IQ such a critical factor in evaluating someone's desirability as a member of society?

Bob J

John Craig said...

Bob J --
Thank you.....Really, we're talking about two separate things here. Likability (is that a word?) and IQ are two separate things. Likability has more to do with where one stands on the narcissism scale, and one's honesty, sense of humor, and so on. IQ is, well, intelligence. Sense of humor may be correlated to IQ, but the narcissism of one's personality is not. (I've met egomaniacs who seemed constitutionally incapable of admitting when they're wrong all the way up and down the IQ scale.) By the way, I didn't mean to imply that I dislike higher IQ types more, merely that a high IQ doesn't mean I like someone any more than a low IQ means I dislike someone.

As far as immigration goes, we're better off as a society admitting more high IQ types; there have been a number studies which show that a nation's per capita GNP is closely correlated with its average IQ. Plus there are all sorts of other things which correlate with higher average IQs, like crime rate, literacy, and so on. So overall you're better off having a high IQ society, even if on an individual basis, IQ correlates with character.

Anonymous said...

I figured out why they don't believe in transracialism but they do believe in transgenderedism.

They don't believe race exists, they do believe gender exists. There can't be a biological mishap concerning race in the human brain because it doesn't exist to them.

Maybe they are just taking one of their beliefs to its conclusion which is more understandable and would be a satisfying answer. But I've never really seen them speak about it even when confronted, the part about race not existing was from one comment only I've ever seen, they just act like the idea has never been brought up, which is the most common tactic used by almost anyone in life. To simply be ignorant of the one point or detail which is a strong weakness in their whole system of belief.

For an example on the other side of the political spectrum: judeo-christianism, even though Judaism and the lack of a belief in hell, lucifer, original sin, and a messiah who will come to die for people's sins (their messiah will be a regular guy, not a form of God) is incompatible with some denominations of Christianity, yet these guys say you will burn in hell if you are agnostic or an atheist but not a Jewish person.

The one tactic here is to just be ignorant to prevent any feelings of cognitive dissonance. Judaism isn't pre-christianity, if you look at the Old Testemant without the new, you can interpret it differently. Some Christians believe that modern Jews are not the same as the one's in the past, they are a heresy and are not descended from Israel but are descended from some Turkish tribe or something. A weird conspiracy theory but you sometimes have to be crazy enough to want to be consistent with your strong set of views.

So for some SJWs, the one's who are actually willing to sit down and argue at least, will use their belief in the lack of race as a reason, they believe strongly enough to come up with conclusions, they are serious. The tumblrina types, who are doing it because they want to live in a fantasy, will just be lucky enough to be ignorant of a counterargument they will never face, or be lucky enough to have a poor enough memory to never remember when the counterargument is present.

Like a typical argument on a youtube comment section argument:

A. xyz
B. (Replies only about z ignoring the rest)
A. XY-z!
B. (Replies only about z)

Usually there are a lot more Bs than As to make sure they won't be pressured into replying about X and Y.


John Craig said...

Ga --
I don't believe that liberals don't believe that race doesn't exist. That's just a fashionable thing to say, but none of them really believe it in the least. Their reasoning when they do say it is that there has been interbreeding, so all the races don't have sharply defined delineations and a lot of people fall between the cracks. Essentially, they're saying that because people like you and me (Eurasians) exist, there's no such thing as either whites or Asians. It's like saying, because there are people of all heights, there's no such thing as short and tall.

You've actually read the Bible? That's one of those things I've always meant to do, but don't have the patience for

Anonymous said...

Defining race is also a problem since the word has enough attributed to it, two scientists can disagree because they have different definitions of race. Some counter-arguments made are that human genetic diversity is incredibly low (which is true), people outside of Africa have less genetic distance than western Africans do with Eastern. And humans, breeding much more slowly than other animals and have fewer generations in the same amount of time to allow enough mutation to occur for speciation. Of course this is an argument in a reply to a strawman created assuming people who believe in race believe humans are all different species of Homo (like neo-nazis do).

Genetic distance is a measure of species. Humans are all the same species if we go by absolute genetic distance. Race could be argued to be a way available genetic traits are shuffled or combined, then concentrated from similar decks of cards. Humans have a greater ability to select features to concentrate or preserve under pressure quite quickly compared to other animals, but even Chimpanzees, within the same subspecies, arguably have races.

Like with dog breeds, select features are available and concentrated until a distinct breed is formed, and/or a few mutations are concentrated. Two wolf sub species may be remarkably similar, but their genetic diversity/distance is more than that between a great dane and chihuahua, but the difference is mostly a matter of drift from time.

Since some scientists and groups like the Nazis in the past made the mistake of assuming humans, because of our racial differences must have a lot of junk differences to complement it, are different species/sub-species of Homo and that one race must be superior over others, the word "race" is cursed to carry those implications. Etymological fallacies and equivocation are stupid things that controls so much of how society acts now, and it's rooted in increased but lower quality communication.

I think there was some legend about an Egyptian meeting a god of knowledge, and presenting to him his invention of papyrus and writing, the god then warned him it would create false literacy and partial knowledge of things that cannot be replaced by direct interaction or experience, and some other stuff. This art preserves old words, and prevents new ones from forming naturally and gaining meaning, words are coined directly or are elevated from slang rather than evolving, people confuse (often on purpose) older meanings and grammar/punctuation with newer ones.

People can see something written down and interpret it however they want, an actual real world discussion requires more context and information, you can't barge into a group of people and blurt something out or start talking like you can with an internet thread.
A scene from an old game, the hero meets the villain computer who has been controlling the net, but the villain AI makes points of why it is doing it. Both SJWs and what I call the ASJW, (I mentioned before who I define them as, I now use this term to prevent confusion with being an anti-sjw person, all asjws are anti-sjw but not all anti-sjws are asjws) do this. The internet is adding to the rotting started by the invention of writing. It is because we are so connected yet unconnected now because of these. The term anti-SJW is being subjected to artificial forced evolution.

The worst kind of person who happens to be against SJWs, 4chan/ED trolls and/or actual blatant racists or sexist people, the kind SJWs strawmen their opponents as, are being used to define a noun that is the "anti-SJW", instead of "anti-sjw" remaining close to it's adjectival use, a person who is against SJWs for whatever reason.

It is like accusing people that if you are anti-nazi, you are always a Stalinist communist.
Maybe it should be a law that from now on, all internet discussions must be done in ithkuil to remove any possible ambiguity. All debates or arguments must be in ithkuil.


John Craig said...

Ga --
Good luck with that (ithkuil) suggestion.

After reading your first paragraph, I was going to say some of the things you said in your next few paragraphs, but then I read them and saw that you beat me to it.

The simplest definition of a species is basically, animals that can interbreed with each other and produce viable offspring, and since all human beings can interbreed, that settles that. But, as you say, the races can be likened to dog subspecies, which have varying characteristics, depending on what they were bred for, and with a few genetic "accidents" thrown in as well. The only difference is that humans were "bred" not by design, but by geographical separation. The differences -- on average -- are still apparent, however.

Anonymous said...

What is your opinion on the alt-right? An internet movement based on memes made on troll sites, often accused of mass trolling, hacking, populism, and more. They have plenty of figures they elevate who are don't know about them. They support Trump even though he does not support (or even know) about them, and for different reasons than mainstream voters did. VERY different reasons.

Like people who voted for Obama because he was half black compared to people who voted for him because they liked him, you can vote for someone for very different reasons.


John Craig said...

Ga --
You're certainly right about people voting for someone for different reasons.

As far as the alt right, I'm not even entirely sure what it is. I get varying definitions from different people, and you, for instance, just gave the Left's definition of them: a bunch of internet trolls. I don't see "populist" as being a dirty word, and I think that the Left's analysis of society is based on a tissue of lies (that all the evils of the world are caused by white men), and it's long past due that a group would spring up to mock political correctness. So, to that extent, I support them. Beyond that, I'm not sure, because I'm not sure what they believe in and stand for. I do like everything I've heard about Stephen Bannon, and I've hear him called alt-right. I don't like everything I've heard about Richard Spencer, and he's been referred to the same way; so I just don't know.

Anonymous said...

Anybody can call themselves Alt-right, I'm starting to think it should not be a word for what a person believes, but for what someone opposes. The only thing they have in common is they share some enemies. Being Alt-right means to me you are opposed to certain forms of leftism. To be alt-right in this definition is to be a co-belligerant (not the same thing as an ally) against a certain force. Bannon and Spencer may share a common enemy, but who says they are agreeing allies, they may even despise eachother, they are co-belligerants at most, not friends:

And that brings up misrepresentation of beliefs and guilt by association. One reason Trump's images is failing is the existence of uninvited allies who he does not know or wish to know, those he wishes to have nothing to do with.

The trolling is complicated. Sometimes it can be vigilantism, but very stupid or intended to cause mayhem, 4chan tried it on ISIS, which didn't work (or it worked as planned, some co-belligerants wanted mayhem), ISIS then ordered a bunch of reprisal killings on captured foreigners. Some were distraught while others laughed at their deaths. These guys in the hack worked together to pull it off but had different goals.

The idea of populism doesn't sit well with me since I believes the individual is key because of all this fogginess I've mentioned about about people working together, but I just went onto the internet to google the dictionary meaning, it's one of those damn words like social justice, eugenics, gay, boner, liberalism, and queer which can be defined so many ways.

Populism brings up thoughts of what enabled Mao to beat Chiang despite overwhelming odds and screw up China to this day. But the dictionary says it's caring about the ordinary citizen. Is rallying the support of the people a good idea if there are pieces of crap poisoning the entire movement? Should we encourage enough select trusted individual to make changes? But isn't that a type of collectivism? I don't know either.