September 15, 2016

"There’s a satisfying moral clarity in being able to out-and-out call people deplorable for their racist views, but there simply isn’t a bright line between 'racist' and 'not racist.'"

"There are quiet biases, and degrees of awareness, that even people who don’t support Donald Trump — even 'hard-working Americans' — need to be aware of. And there is more to racism than what lies within people’s hearts. All of that gets blissfully elided when you sort people into baskets, calling some of them 'irredeemable' and others morally sound. It allows everyone to feel superior. And it’s especially painful to see the racial progressives who’ve done so much to bring nuance into the conversation — to keep white America, regardless of its ideology, in a state of productive discomfort — now leading the cheerleading charge."

Wrote Dara Lind, quoted in "Clinton’s 'Deplorables' Remark Misunderstands Racism — and Might Make It Worse."

***

By the way, there's that "working hard" meme again. The candidates and their proxies are continually referring to the citizenry as "hard working." Why?! Some Americans are hard working, but plenty of us are pacing ourselves comfortably or lazily shirking. Why are we always getting buttered up this way?

74 comments:

Curious George said...

Sounds like someone needs to get their mind right.

Mike Sylwester said...

A racist is someone who disagrees with a Scientific Progressive about some social or political issue.

Brando said...

A recurring leftist theme is that racism is "institutional" which means we don't need to even have any actual racists to allow racism to hold black people back. This way, when someone says "I'm not racist" they can say "wait, don't you enjoy the wealth and riches of this country, and your white privilege?" and then the person has to look down in shame and think "I forgot how privileged I was, what can we do about this institutionalized racism?" and the leftist says "funny you should ask, everything we can do to fix this problem is just a lot more of what we've been proposing all along, and faster!"

It's much easier than grasping that racism is widely considered a taboo in this country, and that almost every other factor outweighs race in determining what happens to whites and blacks, and that other factors may be the cause of black stagnation. Because considering these things might undermine the leftist racialist project, and we cannot have that.

YoungHegelian said...

I also don't understand how answering in the affirmative to questions like "Do you think blacks are more violent than whites?" is per se racist. By any measure, blacks are quite a bit more violent than whites. That's a fact.

Now the reasons for that difference? That's where the racism can come in. Because that's what a lot of melanin does to you. Because of a bad gene pool. Those sound racist to me.

Because of the legacy of slavery. Because of the inner rage of suffering from daily discrimination. Because of poverty. Those are the acceptable liberal answers.

What's the historical/sociological truth of the matter? Who the hell knows?! Like any issue that involves causal chains over a long period of time, it's almost impossible to untangle.

coupe said...

"Working hard" - been there, done that...

I can never say I've really worked hard, after watching the men making roads, and men putting up skyscrapers. Nope, not hard at all.

My life was mostly women's work, at a desk, or at least indoors. I flew air conditioned jets to the war, and had an air conditioned expando-hut in the desert.

Still though, I want a president that doesn't look like they might faint.

SGT Ted said...

And it’s especially painful to see the racial progressives who’ve done so much to bring nuance into the conversation — to keep white America, regardless of its ideology, in a state of productive discomfort

I don't ever remember these assholes being appointed to any such position over anybody, much less white people. Which is the entire problem with the assumed moral authority of "progressives" on matters of race.

Birches said...

Taranto said this in yesterday's column: "What’s notable about Mrs. Clinton’s new noun “deplorable,” though, is that it carries none of the sting of “racism” and the other isms and phobias the left loves to impute to its detractors... Mrs. Clinton, in other words, has given the Americans she deplores a new identity that they can be proud of. This column is going to start capitalizing Deplorable when used as a noun, and we’d like to suggest a broader definition, one that likely includes many of Mrs. Clinton’s supporters as well:

Have you ever been wrongfully accused of being “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic—you name it”? If so, you are a Deplorable."

Kind of backs this writer up, though not in the way she intended.

Birches said...

Good point, YH.

Brando said...

"I also don't understand how answering in the affirmative to questions like "Do you think blacks are more violent than whites?" is per se racist. By any measure, blacks are quite a bit more violent than whites. That's a fact."

That's the problem with counting on questions like that. The opinion tells us nothing about the racism of the person holding it without further questioning as to why they think that.

If they say "blacks are more violent than whites because it's in their genes" then yes, that's basically racist. If they say "blacks commit violent crimes disproportionately to their share of the population, so yes, I think they're more violent than any other racial group in the country and who knows why that is" then that happens to be correct.

Likewise, "do you believe Obama is a Muslim"--a "yes" answer happens to be wrong, but it tells us nothing about whether the opinion holder is even biased against Muslims.

Mike said...

By any measure the American work force is more productive than any other country. That's why it is infuriating when the President calls us lazy, like Obama did (again) recently on his trip abroad. American's ARE hard working, breaking the usual pattern you noted earlier. Because we are it is why we hold our lazy, unproductive, infantile, deceptive political class in very low esteem. Lower than we hold lazy meme-beholden media slime. That's pretty low.

Rick said...

3. The “deplorables” view makes it harder to actually fight racism.

Maybe you’re unimpressed with what I’ve said so far. There’s one last reason you should reconsider your framing on this issue: This sort of talk probably exacerbates racism in the long run.

Damon Linker hinted at this nicely in a piece just published in The Week, when he pointed out that Clinton’s remarks were clearly geared at an audience that already agreed with her about this stuff, about the awfulness of Trump supporters. As for the people who aren’t Clinton supporters, Linker points out that “not a single Trump voter would hear Clinton’s words and conclude, ‘You know what, I am deplorable! But I’m not irredeemable and I’m going to prove it by dropping Trump and voting for Hillary Clinton instead!’”


Implicit in all this is that the solution to racism is voting for the political left. For someone writing a column advocating "nuance" he's awfully blind about his assumptions.

Fabi said...

Bill Clinton's been working hard at dicking bimbos.

Nonapod said...

This is the weird inherent flaw in progressivism. The only reason for government is dealing with problems between people. And the only reason for more government is more problems between people. Progressives are believers in big government that can address big problems. On some level, it is in a progressive politician's best interest that there be problems between people.

Racism is a problem between people.

As progressives continue to pick at the scab of American racism, periodically reopening it and refusing to let any lasting healing occur, our country has become more and more polarized.

Mike said...

Articles like this tryu to swim against the current of simplistic thought that passes for public discourse. I can believe all of the following at once:

+ black people are more likely to commit violent acts than white people
+ black people perform poorly on standardized tests than white people
+ people have a range of traits and any specific black person may be more intelligent and hard working than a specific non-black person
+ many black people suffer severe discrimination within their own communities for "acting white" if they succeed at academic endeavors
+ many people hold prejudices against other ethic types but do not consider themselves "racist" for having such conceptions
+ many people think the word racist has been so over-used that it no longer holds much meaning at all outside of political discussions

buwaya puti said...

"a state of productive discomfort"

She assumes this is productive of anything but propaganda.

traditionalguy said...

Have a little flattery, my dear. It's good for you. Scott Adams and friends would call flattery doses, "pre-suasion."

And then there is Dr Evil/Soros who distributes cash for riots instead of using flattery. I wonder how he says," Money talks and Bull Shit walks," in Hungarian.

cubanbob said...

"There are quiet biases, and degrees of awareness, that even people who don’t support Donald Trump — even 'hard-working Americans' — need to be aware of."

Actually, no we don't. Furthermore you must have us confused with someone who gives a crap.

bagoh20 said...

It is an undeniable fact that racism is holding back Blacks - their own racism.

White privilege is being able to say that without being called an Uncle Tom.

I like being White - you can be more honest about racism. It really is a privilege.

traditionalguy said...

Does Working Hard sound like a sexist standard to you?

Hardly working is the government employee standard. If a government employee gets the same pay, bonus pay, paid Vacations, paid sick days, early retirement pensions at the last year's inflated pay rate and double dipping re-employment pay as a consultant for working hard as you get for hardly working, then you are indeed a free person.

Bruce Hayden said...

I think that Taranto is right - that a lot of people in this country are going to willingly accept, even embrace, being called "Deplorable". Here is a woman who lied, cheated, and stole her way to the top, at an industrial level, calling them Deplorable because they work hard, do the right thing, and wouldn't vote for her to be dog catcher. How arrogant and entitled she sounds. I am better educated than she, and far more honest, and have no problem accepting that title.

CJinPA said...

racial progressives who’ve done so much to bring nuance into the conversation — to keep white America, regardless of its ideology, in a state of productive discomfort

A political movement dedicated to keeping select citizens in a state of discomfort is not a healthy movement.

They are essentially picking at the scab to ensure racial healing never occurs, ensuring continuous social strife and divisiveness. Pretty damn twisted.

Kristian Holvoet said...

Hard working or productive or tax paying are the geese that lay the golden eggs. They migrate, and, oops, no income to tax. Can't insult them.

But maybe the mean: if you are good for something, then your deplorable thoughts are excusable? Sort of like feminists wrt to Bill.

JAORE said...

Using her definition, how many of Hillary supporters are "deplorable". How large is the subset of "irredeemables"?

Most of the leftist I know will knee jerk towards zero.

Sam L. said...

As Bruce Hayden wrote at 10:42, being called "deplorable" by Hillary is a mark of high distinction, one that I wear honorably and proudly!

clint said...

YoungHegelian said...
I also don't understand how answering in the affirmative to questions like "Do you think blacks are more violent than whites?" is per se racist. By any measure, blacks are quite a bit more violent than whites. That's a fact.
--

It's a really vague statement -- "Blacks are more violent than whites." What *exactly* does it mean? What sort of statistics would you look at to confirm or deny the factual accuracy of the statement.

A clearer statement might be: "Statistically, a higher percentage of black people in this country commit violent felonies than the equivalent percentage of white people."

Then it's clearly true. But in both cases, the percentage is quite small.

The problem with "Blacks are more violent than whites." is that it seems to imply a difference in the vast majority of people, black and white, who *don't* commit violent felonies. It's not a stretch to read it as "Given a black man and a white man, the black man is more violent." Which is clearly wrong. Even "Given a black man and a white man, the black man is probably more violent." is sketchy -- it depends on how the two men were selected and what your Bayesian priors look like.


TL;DR: Whether the statement is racist or just plain facts depends on how you translate it from vague English into precise language.

Char Char Binks said...

Say it loud -- I'M DEPLORABLE AND I'M PROUD!

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Birches said...

Taranto said...Have you ever been wrongfully accused of being “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic—you name it”? If so, you are a Deplorable."

I was in a car with a co-worker whom I don't usually interact with. She was commenting to another co-worker about Clinton's deplorable comment, how she had just been called a racist/sexist/homophobe and various other insults. I commented that 'yeah, that pretty much sums me up. We all had a good laugh.

n.n said...

The class diversitists are working overtime to secure their narrative and leverage.

sean said...

I'm confused. Just a day or two Prof. Althouse said Americans had a crazily intense work ethic, now she says that plenty of them are lazily shirking.

FWIW, most international comparative studies show that Americans work much harder than people in other countries. OTOH, impressionistic studies suggest that professors work much less than other UMC professionals. I have no idea how American professors' work ethic compares to professors in other countries.

CStanley said...

"Might make it worse"

How could this kind of rhetoric not make racism worse? The fact that Democrats routinely engage in this is the clearest indication we have that they prioritize electoral politics over healing racism and other divisions in our society.

Michael K said...

"I think that Taranto is right - that a lot of people in this country are going to willingly accept, even embrace, being called "Deplorable".

Amazon has a whole line of tee shirts on the "Deplorable" theme.

I've ordered some.

Gabriel said...

Racism has been defined by progressives as being inherent in one's identity, not a matter of choice or intent.

And then they proceed to hold people culpable for it.

Of course they make the opposite case for LBGT issues; that there is no culpability in something inherent in one's identity.

Because you are always wrong, not because of anything you do or say but because of who you are, and they are always right, not because of anything they do or say, but because of who they are.

Comanche Voter said...

I'll be danged if I believe that "racial progressives have done so much to bring nuance into the conversation". What a load of codswallop. As others have (correctly) noted, the best thing about the Obama era is all the racial healing that has taken place.

rhhardin said...

Are you a racist if you think the average IQ of American blacks is 86?

Literally, you would be.

But suppose you want to argue that outcome-based affirmative action is harmful to blacks using it.

Racism no longer means anything, except for saying something you're noticed that has been declared out of bounds.

William said...

In the 19th century, educated, upper middle class people used to tie themselves into pretzels trying to pretend that they did not have sexual feelings. It's very important for educated, upper middle class people to have a virtue that they can exercise and which proclaims their superiority to the masss.

Kate said...

"--one shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that racism and xenophobia just are deplorable, regardless of the holder--"

I've noticed how many people say something like this, as if it's an unassailable truth. *Actions*, harmful ones, that arise from these thoughts are deplorable. The thoughts themselves are not anyone's business. "Stick and stones..." used to be the mantra that explained this, but now it's accepted dogma that words hurt, too. Down this path lie freedom of speech restrictions. I'm done with giving these kind of statements a pass.

Bruce Hayden said...

@Dr K - thanks. Amazon has 20 pages of Deplorable T shirts. My problem right now is picking the best one - that has free Prime shipping.

gadfly said...

... there simply isn’t a bright line between “racist” and “not racist.” There are quiet biases, and degrees of awareness, that even people who don’t support Donald Trump — even “hard-working Americans” — need to be aware of. And there is more to racism than what lies within people’s hearts.

An absolute bullshit statement! Just singling out those who will not vote for trump and those somehow evaluated as "hard working Americans" does nothing but stretch the length of the BS statement.

To even discuss racist vs non-racist requires a definition of the term - which goes unexplained. As for peoples hearts, there is nothing to discuss except to say the heart is a pump, which moves blood.

Racism is a mental condition affected by discernable differences in skin color, influenced entirely by social ignorance. There are many opinions about racism but nobody knows for sure about deeply held biases because no one admits to being racist. So we are up against Fiction or Fact from Sam's Almanac. The problem, of course, is that the fiction or fact doesn't eminate from Sam Cowling's comedy scripts.

Bad Lieutenant said...

When does the Deplorable Me movie come out?

William said...

My honest opinion is that George Zimmerman and Darren Wilson are innocent. I also believe that the parents of Treyvon Martin and Michael Brown were very poor parents. These are words that I dare not say aloud. This is the kind of the closet racism that underlies our society.

Peter said...

"racial progressives who’ve done so much to bring nuance into the conversation — to keep white America, regardless of its ideology, in a state of productive discomfort."

Like the Christian doctrine that all are sinners, progressive doctrine is that all are racists. Nonetheless, some are more racist than others.

And so now we know why Trump is not merely racist (aren't we all?) but more racist: he does not appear to be in a state of "productive discomfort."

But, when did racial progressivism become a theology?



wildswan said...

Strange tactics for an election. Hillary supporters are going on record that their purpose in conversation is to make others feel bad. And "productive discomfort" - what a phrase ... it sounds like a health nut talking about a diarrhea purge, not someone trying to win hearts and minds.

But see now, the left is writhing about trying to justify insulting people by group identity and insulting more people every time they leftsplain. Their left privilege shows more and more. While Trump is talking about assistance for stay at home Moms and kids. The King of Comedy.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

I wish someone would ask HRC whether the late Sen. Robert Byrd, her "friend and mentor" and also ex-Grand Dragon of the KKK, was "irredeemable." No? Then STFU about the "basket of deplorables." These are people, Hillary. If elected, you will be expected to represent every one of them. And writing off a quarter of the electorate (yes, I know, you dialed that back -- sort of) as "irredeemable" gets you absolutely nowhere.

Bill Peschel said...

All of this racist talk, in addition to being divisive, is a cover for the reality that under Democratic Party control, the cities have become dumping grounds for poor people who have to rely on social services and the underground economy to get by.

If you want to correct that, I would suggest:

a. Require government workers, including police and firefighters, to live in the city. That was suggested in Harrisburg, Pa., and the unions crapped their pants at that proposal.

OTOH, if you open a career pathway for qualified people from the hood, you might find them more willing to crack down on the brothers causing the problems. My f-i-l, a retired Dover cop, said black suspects would surrender to white officers because of this.

b. Reduce restrictions on zoning, licensing, and minimum wage. Encourage small businesses to be founded and grow (but keep the safety and sanitation rules in place).

c. Go after the slumlords. One of the worst in Harrisburg -- one of his houses actually collapsed -- lived in a nice rural part of Maryland. He was also black.

d. Shit. Get the sanitation crews to pick up the shit in the streets. I've driven through neighborhoods where there was trash in the alleys and broken sidewalks. Yes, you can blame the residents; no, it still needs to get picked up.

All right. I'll admit I'm gassing off, but the idea is still sound. Ignore black / white. Focus on helping poor people, no matter what their color.

Jonathan Graehl said...

Americans work too hard.

Therefore it's important to make them feel they're working harder than they really are.

Unfortunately this doesn't work - nobody has been able to figure out how to entice people to *only* offer valuable, actual work. Instead you have this fake work-product arms race (sending out emails acting always-busy, etc)

n.n said...

Diversity is a quality intrinsic to individuals. Class diversity schemes are created as a strategy to exploit political leverage. It's not a coincidence that a quasi-religion, Pro-Choice, based on artificial selection and social opportunism would denigrate individual dignity and debase intrinsic value. Judge people by the content of their character (e.g. principles).

Ann Althouse said...

"I'm confused. Just a day or two Prof. Althouse said Americans had a crazily intense work ethic, now she says that plenty of them are lazily shirking."

Heh. Well, it makes sense to me. The ethic is the dominant discourse. It doesn't say that much about what real people are doing, but the ones who work very hard talk about it and the ones who don't try not to attract attention.

"... impressionistic studies suggest that professors work much less than other UMC professionals. I have no idea how American professors' work ethic compares to professors in other countries."

How do you assess how hard you are working when most of your work is reading and thinking about what you are reading? How do you do that hard? It's also something you might do to relax, and where's the line between the work reading and other reading. If I read a book about American history, am I working? If I go for a long walk while listening to a biography of Lyndon Johnson, am I working? If my thoughts range free and happen upon an idea that works in class, is the entire flight of fancy work?

traditionalguy said...

Life as a flight of fancy. Now that is a thought to chew upon.

tim in vermont said...

This is my rant:

People think that bigots feel low and mean about the things they think and say. It's not true, saying bigoted things makes the bigot feel elevated, superior. It gives the bigot a pleasant little frisson of self-regard. This is why it is almost impossible to convince somebody that they are a bigot. It's probably harder than getting them to give up cigarettes or heroin.

Hillary said a bigoted thing about millions and millions of Americans. Her supporters all loved it because it made them feel superior to the target of those bigoted remarks. Once again, Trump had it right calling Hillary a bigot.

tim in vermont said...

How do you assess how hard you are working when most of your work is reading and thinking about what you are reading?

Well, it depends on whether you are willing to turn your whole inner life over to your job. Are you going to think about that design problem while playing golf, or are you going to think about some pleasant thing of no value other than you enjoy it? That is where I always drew the line. I knew I was done with serious IT work when I stopped thinking about work every minute of the day.

I am semi retired, more retired than not now, and I like thinking about golf when I am on the golf course now.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

tim in vermont, that's right. You know what disgusted me almost more than what HRC said? The cheers and laughter when she said it. These were people hanging out in the quintessential "safe space," where you could say anything along those lines and be perfectly understood.

Wilbur said...

Haven't read any comments so if I'm repeating, I apologize.

I could only read through half of that tripe in NYMAG before I said "Enough". The author goes on and on about "racism", but never bothers to define "racism". Is it racism to believe the USA should try to control immigration? Is it racism to believe The Great Society has done far more harm than good, especially to the black community? Is it racist to criticize the policies of our dear President? Is it racist to refer to him as "Hussein", his middle name?

There can be no discussion, let alone their long-desired "national conversation", of racism or anything else unless you define your terms.

Todd said...

That Lara is quite the open-minded person! She says even people who don’t support Donald Trump could be racist! How "inclusive" of her! So it isn't ONLY Trump supporter that can be racist.

Bless your little heart!

Anglelyne said...

Brando: If they say "blacks are more violent than whites because it's in their genes" then yes, that's basically racist.

Why? It's perhaps "racist" in a neutral sense to think that heritable traits are factors in group outcomes. But it isn't "racist" in any moral sense. It's either true or untrue that genetic factors explain, in part or whole, group differences in levels of violent behavior, and feelz have nothing to do with it.

Nobody is racist in that moral sense just because he think it's pretty likely that at least part of the observed differences in group outcomes/behaviors can be explained by genetic factors. (Regardless of the hysterical assertions of progs that science has definitely proved otherwise).

Real American said...

All conversations on race between leftists and non-leftists can be pretty much summed up this way.

Leftist: blah blah blah blah blah blah
Non-leftist: I disagree.
Leftist: You're racist.

Brando said...

"Why? It's perhaps "racist" in a neutral sense to think that heritable traits are factors in group outcomes. But it isn't "racist" in any moral sense. It's either true or untrue that genetic factors explain, in part or whole, group differences in levels of violent behavior, and feelz have nothing to do with it. "

Fair point--I went with the assumption that blacks are not genetically disposed towards violence; if however there is evidence to that effect that'd be a different story.

My point in defining (at least how I define) "racism" is that as a threshold matter, the racist sentiment has to be untrue. I can't think of an example of something that is both racist and true at the same time (though of course people will argue over what is actually "true" and then there are those who even in the face of facts will decide that inconvenient facts are "racist" anyway).

I haven't followed genetic research on that so for the example I gave above I withhold judgment.

Brando said...

"Leftist: blah blah blah blah blah blah
Non-leftist: I disagree.
Leftist: You're racist."

Classic example was Charles Rangel saying "they used to call us n*gger, now they just say "cut my taxes"". Because everyone knows cutting taxes is racial code among white bigots.

Real American said...

"Discrimination manifests itself in a million subtle, hard-to-pin-down ways"

but don't worry, there will be a gaggle of leftist academics, journalists and SJWs to make sure every possible and impossible instance is fully called out and exploited for leftist political advantage.

Brando said...

"but don't worry, there will be a gaggle of leftist academics, journalists and SJWs to make sure every possible and impossible instance is fully called out and exploited for leftist political advantage. "

Of course--it's the perfect cop out. Racism is everywhere, even hidden in things that you cannot see, so we can therefore blame everything on it. But maybe a bit more income redistribution and a bit more state power over individuals and that'll do the trick. Here's the catch though--there will never be a point at which the racialists can say "racism is dead, we're all good now".

Freeman Hunt said...

The phrase "hard working Americans" is verbal noblesse oblige.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Freeman Hunt said...

The phrase "hard working Americans" is verbal noblesse oblige.

Hard working Americans speak English.

:)

wildswan said...

"It's either true or untrue that genetic factors explain, in part or whole, group differences in levels of violent behavior, and feelz have nothing to do with it."

But it's also true that we know or we do not know the truth that is out there. And it is possible to know that we do not know which of several possibilities is the truth, as for example, in a murder mystery. And this (we know we do not know) is at present the case with behavioral genetics and IQ studies, the "sciences" which study genetics, behavior, IQ and race.

These two fields founded themselves on twin studies. The idea was: study identical twins who have the same DNA - roughly speaking similarities are genetic, differences are from the environment. But this was exploded after the Human Genome Project finished because that project showed that the way in which DNA expressed itself could be altered by methylation or the attachment of chemical side chains to point on the DNA helix. The result would be that in one twin the gene at that point would not express itself or perhaps the non dominant allele would express itself while in the other twin the gene or the dominant allele would express itself. In other words, one twin might have dark brown eyes, the other, light brown. Methylation is a consequence of environment and it is also environment and it is also genetics. Understanding this destroyed the validity of all twin studies up to that point (2001). The field that studies this kind of interaction is called epigenetics and we know that it has not succeeded in replacing twin studies as a source for valid models of behavior and genetics. There is no model. We know we do not know how genetics and behavior interact.

This is my understanding of the present situation in the study of race and behavior.

JAORE said...

My neighbor, a retired professor, tells me that not all Republicans are racist, but all racists are Republicans.

Charming guy.

tim in vermont said...

Charles Rangel saying "they used to call us n*gger, now they just say "cut my taxes"".

Of course, good ole Charlie, like lots of Democrats I know, just cheats on his taxes. No need to cut them! It is true that people who actually pony up their taxes resent them more.

William said...

"They fuck you up your mom and dad." Except for black people. They only get fucked up by racism. That is the sole and exclusive explanation for any deficit or defect in their life.

Anglelyne said...

wildswan 3:49 PM: ...methylation...epigenetics...blah blah blah....

Look, it's really nice that you've picked up a bit of Biology 101 about methylation and gene expression, but the same meandering, straw-manning bullshit about twin studies and Human Genome Project Explosions! and hand-waving about Epigenetics! is no more impressive the second time around. However, it does let me be lazy and just copy-paste my original response to your previous exercise in hand-waving:

wildswan: The discussion on this post is about heritability of IQ. The new insights from the Human Genome Project did alter the validity of all previous discussions about heritability. And epigenetics is part of this new discussion.

...which has not, contrary to what you're desperately trying to imply without having to come right out and own it, proved that group differences in intelligence do not have a heritable genetic basis, or that psychometrics is all a bunch of discredited bunk.

Epigenetics in itself is merely the study of how external factors affect gene expression. Very interesting stuff, btw. Unfortunately, "epigenetics" is also currently being used as the latest crucifix-against-vampires by people who really, really, want to believe that the latest science "proves" that things they don't want to be true aren't true. It doesn't. Sorry.

Continually re-asserting nebulous claims about epigenetics doesn't do anything but consolidate the impression that you don't know what you're talking about and are merely bleating this year's "science for dummies" consolatory talking points. (Continually re-asserting, I note, without ever betraying any knowledge of the subject beyond a dim apprehension that environmental influences are somehow involved. See, environment! So, QED, racists!)

wildswan said...

Angelyne
The last time around I didn't really explain why the facts underlying epigenetics make the twin studies from Galton on invalid so that the arguments in The Bell Curve are obsolete. This time I presented an argument. Understanding it is up to you.

Anglelyne said...

wildswan: The last time around I didn't really explain why the facts underlying epigenetics make the twin studies from Galton on invalid so that the arguments in The Bell Curve are obsolete. This time I presented an argument.

A brief description of the biochemical mechanism underlying differences in gene expression in identical twins is not an "argument" about anything. If you seriously believe that the understanding of the role of methylation in gene expression "invalidates" all conclusions derived from twin studies, you're even more confused than I thought.

I am curious, though, about the ultimate source of your disjointed assertions. Definite cargo-cult flavor in your "arguments". I'm guessing that you picked them up originally from some "goodthink Science! talking points against racists" venue (I have a few suspects in mind), and they got further garbled along the way.

Understanding it is up to you.

Snottiness and ignorance, always a winning combination!

Hyphenated American said...

"racial progressives who’ve done so much to bring nuance into the conversation — to keep white America, regardless of its ideology, in a state of productive discomfort"

Sounds like racists are targeting a group of people based on its race and harasses it. That's racist, right?

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Anglelyne said...

Snottiness and ignorance, always a winning combination!

Snottiness and I are undefeated in mixed doubles.

Paul Snively said...

"And it’s especially painful to see the racial progressives who’ve done so much to bring nuance into the conversation — to keep white America, regardless of its ideology, in a state of productive discomfort — now leading the cheerleading charge."

In other words, if people stop and remember that "racist" means "belief in the inherent superiority of one group of people over another based on the color of their skin," full stop, then they might quit buying the bullshit that equates "someone who expresses legitimate cultural concerns in terms of race because race correlates strongly with culture, but is more visible than culture" and "someone who would hang someone else because their skin was the wrong color."

Duly noted, jackass.

PackerBronco said...

Liberals are so funny:

1. To take someone's race into account is racist.
2. To not take someone's race into account is racist.

Conclusion:

3. You're a racist!

(Note: This line of reasoning does not apply to blacks, latinos, gays, lesbians, democrats, or other favored groups and subgroups ...)

damikesc said...

A recurring leftist theme is that racism is "institutional" which means we don't need to even have any actual racists to allow racism to hold black people back. This way, when someone says "I'm not racist" they can say "wait, don't you enjoy the wealth and riches of this country, and your white privilege?" and then the person has to look down in shame and think "I forgot how privileged I was, what can we do about this institutionalized racism?" and the leftist says "funny you should ask, everything we can do to fix this problem is just a lot more of what we've been proposing all along, and faster!"

The only response to the "institutional racism" charge is to ask "Who runs the institutions"?

Colleges are run by progressives. Have been for decades. And they are always the source of "institutional racism".

Pop culture has the problem. It is ALSO run by progressives and has been for decades.

And we know why she used "deplorable". Because they've drained sexist and racist of all meaning.

These are people, Hillary. If elected, you will be expected to represent every one of them. And writing off a quarter of the electorate (yes, I know, you dialed that back -- sort of) as "irredeemable" gets you absolutely nowhere.


It's not even an expectation. She has said, publicly, that she'd work for people who voted against her.

"So, Hillary, why would you 'work hard' for deplorable people?"

Classic example was Charles Rangel saying "they used to call us n*gger, now they just say "cut my taxes"". Because everyone knows cutting taxes is racial code among white bigots.

"Playing golf" is a "dog whistle" for racism, per Progressives.

I've asked why ESPN is so racist, covering the PGA and all...

but don't worry, there will be a gaggle of leftist academics, journalists and SJWs to make sure every possible and impossible instance is fully called out and exploited for leftist political advantage.

As I said earlier, the ironic part is that the progressives run the institutions with the most "institutional racism". Why would I listen to a professor's ideas on ending "institutional racism" when his institution is laden with it?

mikee said...

I believe that only me, myself and I get to decide if I am a racist. By which I mean, I get to determine for myself if I think, or don't think, that the color of a person's skin is the major factor determining that person's character, intelligence, and so on.

People who call me racist for thinking government should ignore the color of people's skins in all official actions, or for being white, or for being born in the 1950s, or whatever, are just trying to censor me, and that is all they are doing. Eff 'em.