Because of this, there is (rightly IMHO) a social taboo against doing (E) even when it might make sense.
Yep, I also think that the mainstream position on this is largely better than the more naive approach, whether you call it “race realism” or something else. It relies on denial, doublethink and hypocrisy, but none of these are really horrible in themselves—not compared to the things once done under the banner of “racial realism” (slavery, genocide, mistreatment, etc). Now, I understand the HBD advocates’ frustration; it might indeed be possible to build a better-working and more honest system—but I fear that most of them don’t even understand how much caution they need to exercise!
However, I upvoted the transcript of Aurini’s talk the moment I read it, as this is unusually good for that contrarian crowd; he displays some much-needed sympathy, courtesy and sorrow at the whole human tragedy.
True, nevertheless in this case you still have a problem. In order to maintain the lie that race realism is false, (I don’t know to what extent it’s actually true but the point is that you don’t either) you at the least have to explain away the disproportionate contribution of certain races to crime and the disproportionate presence of other races in technical fields.
The first requires either a never-ending-quest to find ever subtler forms of racism on the part of police and victims to explain this away as a product of a biased justice system, or finding ever subtler forms of racism on the part of society that is the “root cause” of these crimes. Alternatively, this requires you to lie about the crime statistics or not report them by race which makes it impossible to do accurate criminology (since at least all other studies will have a confounding variable that can’t be controlled for without raising awkward questions).
The second requires a similar never-ending-quest to find ever subtler forms of racism on the part academics that effect their hiring decisions, and ever subtler forms of racism on the part of educators that cause them to assign certain groups lower grades. Alternatively, insist that grades and hiring be normalized by race, and hope no one notices that members of certain races are incompetent compared to their peers or asks awkward questions about why this renormalization is necessary.
In fact, all of the above and more has been happening over the last 40 years.
And this is all before you start studying human genetics.
I imagine that depends a lot on to what extent one values truth, given that whatever X I value divides the world into righteous Xes and evil non-Xes. But I would agree that it’s really unlikely that any humans value truth to the exclusion of everything else, though I’ve met some who claim to.
Is the same level of caution necessary now that those historical atrocities are available as well-documented examples, and now that a wide range of ethnicities have political organizations willing and able to pursue their interests, as would have been necessary to prevent such things from happening in the first place?
Yep, I also think that the mainstream position on this is largely better than the more naive approach, whether you call it “race realism” or something else. It relies on denial, doublethink and hypocrisy, but none of these are really horrible in themselves—not compared to the things once done under the banner of “racial realism” (slavery, genocide, mistreatment, etc). Now, I understand the HBD advocates’ frustration; it might indeed be possible to build a better-working and more honest system—but I fear that most of them don’t even understand how much caution they need to exercise!
However, I upvoted the transcript of Aurini’s talk the moment I read it, as this is unusually good for that contrarian crowd; he displays some much-needed sympathy, courtesy and sorrow at the whole human tragedy.
The problem with “denial, doublethink and hypocrisy” is that once you commit to them all truth is ever after your enemy.
Frankly, this is the same argument theists use when they say that without God morality can’t exist.
That’s rash. The human world cannot be so black and white, divided neatly into righteous truths and evil lies.
True, nevertheless in this case you still have a problem. In order to maintain the lie that race realism is false, (I don’t know to what extent it’s actually true but the point is that you don’t either) you at the least have to explain away the disproportionate contribution of certain races to crime and the disproportionate presence of other races in technical fields.
The first requires either a never-ending-quest to find ever subtler forms of racism on the part of police and victims to explain this away as a product of a biased justice system, or finding ever subtler forms of racism on the part of society that is the “root cause” of these crimes. Alternatively, this requires you to lie about the crime statistics or not report them by race which makes it impossible to do accurate criminology (since at least all other studies will have a confounding variable that can’t be controlled for without raising awkward questions).
The second requires a similar never-ending-quest to find ever subtler forms of racism on the part academics that effect their hiring decisions, and ever subtler forms of racism on the part of educators that cause them to assign certain groups lower grades. Alternatively, insist that grades and hiring be normalized by race, and hope no one notices that members of certain races are incompetent compared to their peers or asks awkward questions about why this renormalization is necessary.
In fact, all of the above and more has been happening over the last 40 years.
And this is all before you start studying human genetics.
Race correlates with poverty correlates with crime. Next.
I imagine that depends a lot on to what extent one values truth, given that whatever X I value divides the world into righteous Xes and evil non-Xes. But I would agree that it’s really unlikely that any humans value truth to the exclusion of everything else, though I’ve met some who claim to.
Is the same level of caution necessary now that those historical atrocities are available as well-documented examples, and now that a wide range of ethnicities have political organizations willing and able to pursue their interests, as would have been necessary to prevent such things from happening in the first place?