Monday, 30 July 2018

Question of the Day: "Why would anyone be 'proud' of something they had nothing to do with?"

Because ...
‪Race means Nothing. ‬
Got that?

[Hat tip Bosch Fawstin. Question from Matt Newman]


  1. the drunken watchman30 Jul 2018, 20:08:00

    .. try telling that to the All Black selectors :)

  2. Unfortunately to the vast majority of people in the world race means something. You might not like it but.

    1. A large number of people in the world believe in an imaginary friend. Doesn't mean we shouldn't keep pointing out these beliefs are bullshit.

    2. You should be pointing out that you think those beliefs are bullshit because to claim an absolute as in using the word "are" requires a level of proof you cannot sustain.


  3. Putting your head in the sand means your head is in the sand - it doesn't make you morally superior.

  4. Race means Nothing.
    Unless you are talking about bone marrow transplants, sickle-cell anemia, skin tone, or many other inheritable traits. Just because something is incompletely researched, poorly defined when talked about, and intellectually taboo, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

    1. Blood type is as significant a factor as race in any of those.

      This is called a motte-and-baille argument. "Race" has two definitions--a scientifically reasonable one (a subpopulation of humans) and a bat-crap crazy one (the socio-economic concept). Anyone that's literate can look at this blog and know that the authors are referring to the latter--the lack of anthropological discussion is sufficient to prove that.

    2. 1) So race does mean something. It just, in your opinion, doesn't mean much. But since I was responding to the opinion that it means nothing, that makes me right.
      2) If you think this is a nit-pick read this argument:
      NotPCs heart is undoubtedly in the right place but his argument was: simplistic, provably wrong, and counter-productive.
      3) If you're going to accuse me of being illiterate you'd do well to spell bailey correctly.

    3. the drunken watchman1 Aug 2018, 11:42:00


      I followed that link. Thanks for that.

      Seems clear that "the science is not settled" ......

      I guess that makes me a white supremacist AND a climate denier :(

    4. "So race does mean something. It just, in your opinion, doesn't mean much. But since I was responding to the opinion that it means nothing, that makes me right."

      No you're not right - and the benefit of the doubt I'm granting in assuming you're not deliberately trying to obfuscate is becoming increasingly tenuous. It was abundantly clear to me that Dinwar (and PC before that) were saying race means nothing in the context of morality and politics. When you're at the doctor seeking a bone marrow transplant it might mean something, as might a countless range of other variables unique to you (both chosen and unchosen). But none of the unchosen variables have any broader implication for morality and politics - and this was clearly the topic of discussion.

  5. the drunken watchman1 Aug 2018, 14:21:00

    Mark T

    did you follow JP's link, and read the articles? What did you think? Any potential for political implications?

    1. I followed the link briefly to see where it was probably headed. Let's assume for the sake of this discussion there's evidence for some correlation between IQ and race, which I assume is what it was all about. I'm sure too you could find a correlation between IQ and suburb you live in, between IQ and wealth level, between IQ and whether you've just had a child and suffering from 'baby-brain', between IQ and sex, and you could perhaps even find a correlation between IQ and how healthy the mother is during pregnancy. Does any of this have an implication for morality and politics? No. Morality only deals with what choices we have, and politics deals with what the human species needs to flourish. Let me say that again: what the HUMAN SPECIES needs to flourish. Not just you, not just me, not just a European, not just an African, not just a smart person, and not just a dumb person. All of us, to the extent we're human. Whatever range of IQ's exist, and whatever the variables that determine that range, we are all human beings and our survival requires the exercise of our rational faculty. From this fundamental concept comes both a proper morality, and the ideal political system. That is unchanging against all variability amongst the human species - and it's enshrinenment of that fundamental concept that gave birth to Western Civilisation. Anyone who thinks differing intelligence levels could change this, clearly doesn't understand the grounding for the civilization they purport to uphold. They're also fundamentally on the same side as the indentitarian Left on this issue, who also claim there are no universal values for human beings, and therefore a European can't impose their version of morality or politics on a Muslim living in Africa.

    2. the drunken watchman1 Aug 2018, 16:07:00

      Thanks for taking the time to reply in good faith.

      Your opinion will be mulled over :)

    3. the drunken watchman1 Aug 2018, 16:19:00

      you might like to check out Matt Ridley's "The Origins of Virtue" ........

  6. the drunken watchman2 Aug 2018, 11:31:00

    "Morality only deals with what choices we have..." " .... as the indentitarian Left on this issue, who also claim there are no universal values for human beings"

    Meanwhile, back on the ranch...

    Matt Ridley purports a deterministic link between genes and morality...

    Evolutionary biologists purport selection at the level of the gene (not the species)...

    If Ridley and the evo biologists are correct, does that conflict with the notion of universal values for human beings underpinning a political philosophy which deals with what the human species needs to flourish? Is this latter a collectivist view of morality?

    1. the drunken watchman2 Aug 2018, 22:16:00

      Mark T

      Awaiting your reply before time becomes the reason for none.

      Feel free to say Matt Ridley and/ or the evolutionary biologists are wrong :)

    2. I have no idea what "a deterministic link between genes and morality" even means, or how one could even go about demonstrating this. Again, as seems to be comment on the alt-right, I suspect 'race' and 'culture' are being conflated. Whatever behavior nature or nurture might predispose us towards, every human being has free will in the morality they adopt. So the answer to your question is no and yes respectively, as I've also explained in previous posts.

    3. the drunken watchman3 Aug 2018, 21:11:00

      Oxford dictionary
      Definition of deterministic in English:

      Relating to the philosophical doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes regarded as external to the will.

      ‘a deterministic theory’

      By "link", I was describing a relationship between genes and morality which incorporates an element of determinism. I really didn't think the meaning of the two words as I used them would be that hard to get.

      As for "how one could even go about demonstrating this", you could try reading the book I referred you to. In this book Matt Ridley argues the case, compellingly, imho.

      As for your alt-right comment, I guess it was only a matter of time before the name-calling started. It usually does when dogma meets science. I am not conflating anything - now it is my turn to say I don't know what you are talking about.

      Meantime, it is interesting to me that you would describe your view of morality as a "collectivist". Don't bother wondering why.


1. Commenters are welcome and invited.
2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated. Links to bogus news sites (and worse) will be deleted.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say it, it's important enough to put a name to it.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.