On Sunday, June 14, 2015 at 8:46:02 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
> RationalWiki calls him a racist - and an anti-vaxxer - but I need more than a
> secondary source to clear up my confusion.
I found this interview with him by a sympathetic individual who was trying to
give him a chance to clear his name:
http://www.johndbrown.com/what-vox-day-believes/
Now, I have nothing against the argument that we should deal scientifically
with claims that there are genetic differences in IQ between the races.
Except the one fatal objection: doing so allows the appearance that such a
claim is regarded as respectable - and, in the current climate, the general
public is likely to equate "less intelligent" with "less human". So hard
scientific proof that blacks were less intelligent - even by some microscopic
fraction of an IQ point - could lead a large number of white voters deciding
that there would be no moral objection to a return to chattel slavery.
Divorcing science from society - when one's goal is political, and hence social
- is, at the least, disingenuous.
I suspect there's a cultural explanation for the superior achievements of the
Jewish and Chinese people, and genetic IQ variations are below the level we can
usefully detect. Even, say, Australian Aborigines - who one might *expect*,
with smaller brains and normal body size, to be less intelligent - are, in
practice, obviously just as smart as anyone else. What I suspect, though, is
that *learning disabilities* may be more common among indigenous people - why
the heck *would* dyslexia be selected out among people with no written language?
And that will just make it harder to help these people benefit from education -
as we will be looking for the wrong problem if we use IQ tests.
"African-American men are 500 times more likely to possess a gene variant that
is linked to violence and aggression than white American men."
Anyone who can say something like that is certainly going to be branded a
racist.
For all I know, it may be a verifiable fact, though. The argument that preceded
it - that impulsiveness isn't selected out as strongly in indigenous societies
- is valid enough.
But given what black people in the U.S. live under every day, the problem of
black crime would be much worse than it was if it weren't for the fact -
probably due to cultural survival adaptation, and not genetic *superiority* -
that black men seem to be, in equal circumstances, much *less* likely to be
violent than white men.
White men wouldn't put up with that nonsense, and one is kidding oneself to
think otherwise.
So far, therefore, I am going to reserve judgement on the charge of "moral monster". However, I will condemn him now as a "sloppy thinker".
John Savard