I can no longer read most of what Hanania writes because of his TDS and his obsession with not merely going after the far MAGA right but claiming that almost the entirety of the right IS now the far MAGA right. And therefore the left is the far better party and “The Media is Basically Honest and Good.”
I actually attribute this otherwise highly irrational behavior change on his part to his desire to get as far away as he can from his racist past. But I am just guessing.
But his change is sad, because he used to be incredibly interesting, 85% on target with 15% eye-rollingly infuriating bad takes. But now the ratio seems to be reversed.
But all that said, I agree that claims that today he is “racist” are just dead wrong.
It is awkward to hold opinions that are mostly held by nasty, ignorant people, people with whom you largely disagree: Observers reasonably suspect that you are one of the nasty ignoramuses. You may blame the nice educated people for this situation: if they were truly enlightened they would share your heterodox views, and so would have no occasion to lump you in with the bad guys. But whoever is to blame, you are awkwardly placed.
I hesitate to ask, but how does the replication crisis (the big Nature study) affect public confidence in all of these "studies" about "differences"? As a Randian I want as little to do with studies as possible, of course, but since they are in your dream, I wondered whether your confidence in them has been shaken.
If some subgroup of humanity are less intelligent than others, Ricardo's law becomes relevant: They can specialize in work for which low intelligence is less of a problem, and both enrich themselves and make the more intelligent better off.
Define "less intelligent". If you mean all of them, every last single one, you might have a point. But unless you specifically defined your subgroup as "low IQ", then judging all individuals in that subgroup based on an average collective trait is my definition of racism, or bigotry in general.
Curious what your best attempt of a definition of "racism" would be.
For feminism, there is a natural "how do people who use the word about themselves differ from the outgroup". But seldom anyone, let alone anyone whose views or definitions I'm interested in, considers themselves a racist. It is almost always an accusary term.
However, in this essay, i got the impression you thought the term did have some descriptive meaning, so I wonder if you had to describe how you use the word
One definition is anyone who uses a collective trait, real or not, to punish or restrict individuals.
Whether or not blacks as a group have lower IQs, some clearly have higher IQs.
I have never met anyone who dislikes blacks mere for not liking dark skin. The old "tall, dark, and handsome" shows that is not a common dislike. But I would not call that racism, since it is based on an individual trait and would apply across all of humanity to some extent.
Not a very good definition, I think. But it's the best I can do.
I hate to be the one to break the news, but high intelligence is not necessary to being a scientist or acquiring a science PhD. It has much more to do with persistence. (Yes, being a *good* scientist requires that - that's another subject.)
Mathematician is probably different but I have no first-hand knowledge on that.
Very nicely done.
I have the same dream.
I have more trouble than you in reading Richard, but it has nothing to do with alleged racism. I just find him verbose.
To one of his rants, I posted: “You need an editor.”
Dangerous topic and fraught history of bad acts by bad actors but should be discussable
Well done.
I can no longer read most of what Hanania writes because of his TDS and his obsession with not merely going after the far MAGA right but claiming that almost the entirety of the right IS now the far MAGA right. And therefore the left is the far better party and “The Media is Basically Honest and Good.”
I actually attribute this otherwise highly irrational behavior change on his part to his desire to get as far away as he can from his racist past. But I am just guessing.
But his change is sad, because he used to be incredibly interesting, 85% on target with 15% eye-rollingly infuriating bad takes. But now the ratio seems to be reversed.
But all that said, I agree that claims that today he is “racist” are just dead wrong.
It is awkward to hold opinions that are mostly held by nasty, ignorant people, people with whom you largely disagree: Observers reasonably suspect that you are one of the nasty ignoramuses. You may blame the nice educated people for this situation: if they were truly enlightened they would share your heterodox views, and so would have no occasion to lump you in with the bad guys. But whoever is to blame, you are awkwardly placed.
I hesitate to ask, but how does the replication crisis (the big Nature study) affect public confidence in all of these "studies" about "differences"? As a Randian I want as little to do with studies as possible, of course, but since they are in your dream, I wondered whether your confidence in them has been shaken.
If some subgroup of humanity are less intelligent than others, Ricardo's law becomes relevant: They can specialize in work for which low intelligence is less of a problem, and both enrich themselves and make the more intelligent better off.
Define "less intelligent". If you mean all of them, every last single one, you might have a point. But unless you specifically defined your subgroup as "low IQ", then judging all individuals in that subgroup based on an average collective trait is my definition of racism, or bigotry in general.
Curious what your best attempt of a definition of "racism" would be.
For feminism, there is a natural "how do people who use the word about themselves differ from the outgroup". But seldom anyone, let alone anyone whose views or definitions I'm interested in, considers themselves a racist. It is almost always an accusary term.
However, in this essay, i got the impression you thought the term did have some descriptive meaning, so I wonder if you had to describe how you use the word
One definition is anyone who uses a collective trait, real or not, to punish or restrict individuals.
Whether or not blacks as a group have lower IQs, some clearly have higher IQs.
I have never met anyone who dislikes blacks mere for not liking dark skin. The old "tall, dark, and handsome" shows that is not a common dislike. But I would not call that racism, since it is based on an individual trait and would apply across all of humanity to some extent.
Not a very good definition, I think. But it's the best I can do.
Correct. Kudos.
I hate to be the one to break the news, but high intelligence is not necessary to being a scientist or acquiring a science PhD. It has much more to do with persistence. (Yes, being a *good* scientist requires that - that's another subject.)
Mathematician is probably different but I have no first-hand knowledge on that.