the neoliberal vision of the future

[onarchy]

Do you have any sources that aren't from discredited racist "schools"?

Suppose for a second that all my sources were from self-expressed racists. (they're not) Why should this matter at all? How would you react to someone who was very interested in hearing whether you were basing your views on, say, black scientists and immediately discredited you if you did? Would you regard this as an ok way to judge an argument?

 

[nino_savatte]

Racists don't often admit to their racism.

 

[frogwoman]

Suppose for a second that all my sources were from self-expressed racists. (they're not) Why should this matter at all? How would you react to someone who was very interested in hearing whether you were basing your views on, say, black scientists and immediately discredited you if you did? Would you regard this as an ok way to judge an argument?

the two aren't the same thing at all, because black people don't necessarily have any beliefs, but racists do - ie, racism.

 

[Blagsta]

Suppose for a second that all my sources were from self-expressed racists. (they're not) Why should this matter at all? How would you react to someone who was very interested in hearing whether you were basing your views on, say, black scientists and immediately discredited you if you did? Would you regard this as an ok way to judge an argument?

That's a no then.

 

[sihhi]

Depends where you are. I'm (mostly) in the USA.

I'd say they're shrinking there too, anti-immigration and pro-regulation trends seem way stronger than before 2008.

This is what onarchy reminds me of:

 

[Blagsta]

the two aren't the same thing at all, because black people don't necessarily have any beliefs, but racists do - ie, racism.

Exactly. The fact that onan is using this analogy is very telling.

 

[onarchy]

I wouldn't care. Maybe this evidence already exists. It does not change anything.

Interesting! Very interesting! So you wouldn't instantly become a racist? Hmmmm. Now, just for a moment, can you consider the possibility that maybe, just maybe, *I* wouldn't care and that *I* wouldn't change my individualism and liberal position? Is that conceivable? Now, do you think it is ok to immediately assume that I am a racist? Have you seen ANY statement about my evaluation of ANY individual which is racist? Can you point to ANY political view of mine that is even remotely racist? If not, do you think it is reasonable to brand me as a racist based on something that if YOU were the one doing it you wouldn't call yourself a racist?

 

[DotCommunist]

the two aren't the same thing at all, because black people don't necessarily have any beliefs, but racists do - ie, racism.

I think onar was looking for 'the opposite of a racist' for his example and somehow came up with 'a black person'

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Your way of thinking leads directly to Onarchy.

I think you're mistakenly identifying two different ways of describing the same thing as two different things. We experience ideas in our subjective awareness as non-material because we experience our subjective awareness as non-material. That's all.

There is no need to deny the existence of subjective experience to solve this problem as the likes of Dennett and Churchland do – which is, imo, absurd. But neither is there any justification for the mystification of the problem as you are doing – it explains nothing and solves nothing.

 

[Dillinger4]

I think onar was looking for 'the opposite of a racist' for his example and somehow came up with 'a black person'

I've heard his best friend is black.

 

[TruXta]

Your way of thinking leads directly to Onarchy.

Glad you sorted that out using your incontrovertible arguments then. By the by: Mauss? Heard of him?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I think onar was looking for 'the opposite of a racist' for his example and somehow came up with 'a black person'

Yep. The daft racist.

 

[frogwoman]

Interesting! Very interesting! So you wouldn't instantly become a racist? Hmmmm. Now, just for a moment, can you consider the possibility that maybe, just maybe, *I* wouldn't care and that *I* wouldn't change my individualism and liberal position? Is that conceivable? Now, do you think it is ok to immediately assume that I am a racist? Have you seen ANY statement about my evaluation of ANY individual which is racist? Can you point to ANY political view of mine that is even remotely racist? If not, do you think it is reasonable to brand me as a racist based on something that if YOU were the one doing it you wouldn't call yourself a racist?

It's interesting that you assume that I think your a racist when I havent suggested anything like that. What I am saying is that this information would not change my political views. It is irrelevant. It does not alter a thing about the class structure of society or any of the other things i'm concerned about. You, however, have based your entire worldview around it (as well as your comments about gas chambers etc).

 

[onarchy]

the two aren't the same thing at all, because black people don't necessarily have any beliefs, but racists do - ie, racism.

Aah, so having beliefs is bad. So it would be ok to "discredit" someone if they, say, based their views on muslim scientists?

 

[sihhi]

Plus the classic I consider onarchy a mixture of 'too smart for science', 'arrogant', 'too smart for heinlein' with a dash of 'atlas'

 

[frogwoman]

Aah, so having beliefs is bad. So it would be ok to "discredit" someone if they, say, based their views on muslim scientists?

It would if they were attempting to prove the "scientific basis" of the miracles in the Koran.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

At the time yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Murray_(author)#Biography

Does this look like the biography of a man who is dismissed as a ranting lunatic by everyone?

You can argue this point in the opposite direction to phil though ...

To the extent that science became the dominant form of reasoning towards the end of the last millenium, people with nasty agendas will tend to dress their stuff up as science, but it's cargo cult science at best. Certainly the sort of stuff onarchy is prone to is, which is why along with the 'scientific racism' and climate contrarianism, we also have his 'ether' mumbo jumbo "I don't need to do maths to prove that Einstein was wrong" etc.

People like the Pioneer Institute (main funders of "race science" research used by Murray) or the various Exxon front groups who want to challenge climate science, or the fundamentalist christians who want to advance 'creation science' are determined to create the illusion of scientific support for their causes to further political agendas and because the media is overwhelmingly scientifically illiterate, they're able to fairly skillfully manipulate its appetite for controversy into getting airtime for their cargo cult science. This happened with the "Bell Curve" it happened not so long ago with Channel Four showing "The Great Global Warming Swindle" and no doubt it'll happen again ...

Real science though, doesn't tolerate their approach to facts and logic, which is precisely why they have to have things like the Pioneer Institute to pay for dodgy science that wouldn't otherwise be funded.

Increasingly, while I can see that phil does have a point, I think the balance is tipping in the other direction and that capitalism (with its unsustainable addiction to ~3% year on year growth pushing the limits of the planets resources) is coming into conflict with science, which is why you get wingnut funding increasingly going into the promotion of scientific illiteracy, distrust of science and cargo cult science of the kinds onarchy is keen on.

 

[TruXta]

You define a racist as someone who thinks that intelligence is a trait of the brain. Now, could you please tell me how YOU would react if you were presented with incontrovertible evidence that indeed IQ is biologically based and heritable and that there exists group variations? Would you instantly become a nazi? It is really interesting to hear what you think about this. Clearly you think *I* am a racist because I judge the evidence to strongly support the notion of a biologically founded intelligence, despite the fact that I draw no racist conclusions from this and do not racially discriminate. I.e. you're branding me as a racist for my evaluation of scientific data. So I am asking you: would YOU become a racist if you were to see incontrovertible evidence for the biological basis of intelligence?

Intelligence != IQ. This is but one of many errors you're making. It's clear as day that intelligence is heritable, it's not clear at all that there exists persistent group variations which are proximally caused by genetics.

 

[onarchy]

Racists don't often admit to their racism.

Aah, so you think it's ok to have left-wing thought police that brands people as racists based on the *suspicion* that they are racist? That's a proper methodology in socialist-land?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Aah, so you think it's ok to have left-wing thought police that brands people as racists based on the *suspicion* that they are racist? That's a proper methodology in socialist-land?

You can't even see the thousand different ways in which you manifest your racism in your posts, can you, you stupid racist.

 

[Blagsta]

Aah, so having beliefs is bad. So it would be ok to "discredit" someone if they, say, based their views on muslim scientists?

 

[frogwoman]

You can argue this point in the opposite direction to phil though ...

To the extent that science became the dominant form of reasoning towards the end of the last millenium, people with nasty agendas will tend to dress their stuff up as science, but it's cargo cult science at best. Certainly the sort of stuff onarchy is prone to is, which is why along with the 'scientific racism' and climate contrarianism, we also have his 'ether' mumbo jumbo.

People like the Pioneer Institute (main funders of "race science" research used by Murray) or the various Exxon front groups who want to challenge climate science, or the fundamentalist christians who want to advance 'creation science' are determined to create the illusion of scientific support for their causes to further political agendas and because the media is overwhelmingly scientifically illiterate, they're able to fairly skillfully manipulate its appetite for controversy into getting airtime for their cargo cult science. This happened with the "Bell Curve" it happened not so long ago with Channel Four showing "The Great Global Warming Swindle" and no doubt it'll happen again ...

Real science though, doesn't tolerate their approach to facts and logic ...

Increasingly, while I can see that phil does have a point, I think the balance is tipping in the other direction and that capitalism (with its unsustainable addiction to ~3% year on year growth) is coming into conflict with science, which is why you get wingnut funding increasingly going into the promotion of scientific illiteracy, distrust of science and cargo cult science of the kinds onarchy is keen on.

Yeah, I'm saying that science - and what is defined as scientific and what is able to get funding - is not free from ideological bias though.

 

[Blagsta]

Aah, so you think it's ok to have left-wing thought police that brands people as racists based on the *suspicion* that they are racist? That's a proper methodology in socialist-land?

Hmmm, let's see...

Holocaust revisionism, The Bell Curve, Galton...

 

[frogwoman]

Aah, so having beliefs is bad. So it would be ok to "discredit" someone if they, say, based their views on muslim scientists?

it is bad if you are studying race and intelligence and start from the principle that black people are stupid.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

it is bad if you are studying race and intelligence and start from the principle that black people are stupid.

It's worse than that, imo. The reasoning goes llke this:

Poor people are poor because they are stupid. Black people are poor, therefore they are stupid.

 

[sihhi]

Can you point to ANY political view of mine that is even remotely racist? If not, do you think it is reasonable to brand me as a racist based on something that if YOU were the one doing it you wouldn't call yourself a racist?

Just a guess but maybe your nonsense about Africa and the Holocaust?

Yes, I know, by typing these words I am turning into "thought police".
How can I stop being "thought police"?

 

[frogwoman]

It's worse than that, imo. The reasoning goes llke this:

Poor people are poor because they are stupid. Black people are poor, therefore they are stupid.

Yep.

 

[frogwoman]

Interesting! Very interesting! So you wouldn't instantly become a racist? Hmmmm. Now, just for a moment, can you consider the possibility that maybe, just maybe, *I* wouldn't care and that *I* wouldn't change my individualism and liberal position?

You clearly do care.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Yeah, I'm saying that science - and what is defined as scientific and what is able to get funding - is not free from ideological bias though.

What are you thinking of specifically? (apologies if you already made this clear but if so I missed it)

 

[frogwoman]

I'm talking about drug companies funding research (espcially in mental health) that leads to their drugs being seen as necessary for example ... just basically what type of research is able to get funding from governments, businesses etc (and what therefore comes to public attention).