Taking compassionate reactionism offline

(I’m not a compassionate reactionist myself — just a passionate anti-antirac-ist.)

Courtesy of Unamused
(PDF version: flyer2_intelligence_gap)

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Taking compassionate reactionism offline

  1. chris says:

    “Each race is genetically distinct: we can determine”

    I thought races were essentially clines/clusters of different continental populations and not distinct categories with no overlap.

    • Chuck says:

      I don’t see anything technically wrong with this statement — but I agree that it’s confusing. As distinct means “distinguished as not being the same; not identical; separate,” to say each “race is genetically distinct” is just to say that each race is genetically distinguishable or is NOT genetically identical.

      As long as one has a coherent concept of “race,” which allows one to distinguish race A from race B (e.g. races are regional populations, races are populations identifiable by cluster analysis) one can make this statement.

      In general, I guess I don’t see a contradiction in saying “races are essentially clines/clusters and not taxonomically distinct categories” and “races are genetically distinct.” The former says that the borders between racial groups are fuzzy and the later says that the contents (the average genetic makeup) are different.

      How would you phrase it better? Perhaps, “Racial populations differ genetically”?

  2. Erik says:

    It’s like red and orange. They border on the color wheel, and sometimes you wonder what color /this/ pixel is, but they’re distinct enough that “red” and “orange” are meaningful words.

  3. chris says:

    I would phrase it as “Each race is genetically distinguishable” mainly because it removes any ability for people indoctrinated in liberal arguments to off-handedly dismiss the entire argument as un-scientific because they ‘know’ that races aren’t discrete/non-overlapping categories.

    When people are reading arguments which they are emotionally/idealogically invested against, they tend to look for any reason, however small, to dismiss that argument as false. That’s why you should phrase arguments so that you don’t give those you are trying to persuade any logical foundation, however small, to dismiss any part of the argument. For if they are emotionally invested against the argument, that minor dismissal will malign the whole of the argument in their mind and the chances of subsequently persuading them are significantly smaller.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s