[ZZtop]

Is this another 'inferior races have lower IQs' thread? I need to know before watching that vid.

[opergolon]

Is the classical music in the background supposed to make this drivel sound more intelligent?

[rolex-buy]

Past presenters include Patrick J. Buchanan. I bet Mencken would have absolutely LOVED that.

[6M8PJigS]

What is HBD? from The HL Mencken Club on Vimeo.

[DrCeshing]

A euphemism for racism.

[6M8PJigS]

So you're a sexist too. Even better!

[AndyColemants]

So you're a sexist too. Even better!

HBD is not a code word for racism regardless of what my personal views might be. Denying that there are biological differences between the young and the old or men and women or between ethnic groups is not a moral or a "nice" position, its a stupid position. Worse its not even a stupid position that is counter-intuitive but declared bunk by science, both common sense and empirical data as well as a large share of experts consider it wrong.

One is free to choose how this effects values, personal or political implications or values, but no matter what they are you are more likely to make more progress on them if you have a good map of reality. I'm quite confident you probably don't agree with how I interested this and how it decided my values or politics (thought you might be surprised how some of my more forum wide known opinions have shifted since my pursuit of Christianity) but let me once again stress that this is completely irrelevant.

You may not agree with my values, but to simply proclaim a field of study to be insuperable from what you perceive as malevolent intent is the exact same spirit that at one point held scientific discourse subjugated to moralistic concerns. Ethical limitations should on the methods of how we acquire knowledge, but I refuse to believe there is such a thing as forbidden knowledge.

Had you bothered to watch the video you would understand that HBD is quite far from being all about IQ and conscientiousness differences, it is in fact a bold approach at reopening all questions where the favoured popular explanations are not supported by experts and displacing old junk science (both of the hereditary and blank slate sides of the argument) with regards to what is controlled by genes rather than memes in humans.

That people interested in the subject must also carry on a political fight to maintain the right for the existence of HBD study is no different from how those opposing Lysenkoism in the Soviet Union where also by necessity political despite the fact that today we consider such knowledge to not be particularly anticommunist in its effect on people's values or views. They had to be political because people, often powerful people, thought it had anticommunist implications and worse it hurt their authority by proving Stalin's pet wrong.

[TodeImmabbedo]

Are you trying to make yourself look smart by going on an irrelevant tangent?

No this paragraph relates somewhat to some the discussions in the posted video, which you obviously didn't watch. To make it simple, people who are interested in opening up a field of inquiry free of political pressure or preconceptions must precariously be political to a extent to counteract political and cultural pressure against them. This does not mean that there is political advocacy for anything beyond this!

[pGJLweEw]

But there are many people in Anthropology, psychology and those in positions of public power that quite literally are blank slatist, they really do claim that people are at psychological clones at least when considering genetic influence. And these people despite being the clear minority in their field are granted disproportionate public attention and thus fuel public misconceptions. Some like Stephen Jay Gould even felt ok using dishonest arguments for propaganda points (The Mismeasure of Man falsely states, and this was known at the time it came out, that there is no correlation between brain size and IQ).

But I never implied everyone who disagreed on specific issues is blank slater, I do however occasionally mislabel those who think any study of biological differences is a priori wrong, blank salters because they implicitly promote this view.

They implicitly promote skepticism toward such views because of the potential harm that could be caused mistakenly labeling a group of people as being more stupid, especially groups that have not yet recovered from the effects of institutional racism.

But to return your favor let me point out, something I've already mentioned and that you have conveniently ignored:
Not all HBDers think that for example Asians have higher average IQs than Indians or Whites. If what I said is a straw man then you have been setting up your own too:

And what possible racist agenda might people like Thomas Sowell have in considering it important such reasearch (he actually argues for the specific example of the most controversial aspect, IQ differences) be carried out? I'm only saying that I think a lot of self-identified proponents of "Human biodiversity" are closet racists.

[mp3 free]

I'm only saying that I think a lot of self-identified proponents of "Human biodiversity" are closet racists.

This is probably true for some people. But I hope you agree that the hate obsessed, irrational and arguably dangerous racists don't usually have the mental tool-kit to do any serious commentary let alone research on the subject. They can rarely go beyond brain dead supremacism.

I also have a feeling that at least the researchers in these field are not more racist than the average guy in the street (though they might be more racist than is typical for their income or education bracket):

[Hrennilasi]

This is probably true for some people. But I hope you agree that the hate obsessed, irrational and arguably dangerous racists don't usually have the mental tool-kit to do any serious commentary let alone research on the subject. They can rarely go beyond brain dead supremacism.

I also have a feeling that at least the researchers in these field are not more racist than the average guy in the street (though they might be more racist than is typical for their income or education bracket):

I disagree. Just because someone is educated, doesn't mean they can't be a hate obsessed, irrational and arguably dangerous racist. I will that you, Hera, are not a hate obsessed, dangerous racist.

[Stoottnoiciek]

They can be, I just stated that the majority of people who are like that don't tend to be very bright.

But you are implying association, where there may be one. So I must believe that you have some hard evidence to back this up. Or then why cover for the "intellectual" racists?



I'm not sure I understand this right. Don't you hate my guts? Or is my wogishness showing and I just missed subtle mocking that doesn't translate well from English. Yeah, I thought it would be too subtle for you. Best you don't know.