Scott Siskind believes scientific racism is “probably partially correct”
1–10 of 20 posts
Re: Scott Siskind believes scientific racism is “probably partially correct”
#2For the last several days much of the discussion about Scott Siskind of Slate Star Codex has been about "guilt by association" with Charles Murray, Moldbug and other white supremacist and neoreactionary types. I firmly believe that guilt by association with white supremacists is fundamentally valid, but I was heavily downvoted for my arguments.
My priors have been confirmed, as the rationalists would say. Association with white supremacists and neoreactionaries continues to be strong evidence of one's own sympathies, despite loud protestations (perhaps too much?) from the denizens of this hellsite.
Re: Scott Siskind believes scientific racism is “probably partially correct”
#3Siskind is very thoughtful and reads a lot. If, after weighing the evidence, he concluded that some of the white/black difference on IQ tests is probably genetic, that does not make him a bad person or a "white supremacist", unless he has advocated denying civil rights to blacks. He has not done so.
There is much current discussion of how to deal with racial disparities in outcomes in employment and education. What to do about them depends on what factors cause them, which should be studied objectively.
Re: Scott Siskind believes scientific racism is “probably partially correct”
#4Siskind is very thoughtful and reads a lot. If, after weighing the evidence, he concluded that some of the white/black difference on IQ tests is probably genetic, that does not make him a bad person or a "white supremacist", unless he has advocated denying civil rights to blacks. He has not done so. There is much current discussion of how to deal with racial disparities in outcomes in employment and education. What t…
Yes, yes, that's the standard scientific racist line. "Oh we just care about educational outcomes".
Re: Scott Siskind believes scientific racism is “probably partially correct”
#5For the last several days much of the discussion about Scott Siskind of Slate Star Codex has been about "guilt by association" with Charles Murray, Moldbug and other white supremacist and neoreactionary types. I firmly believe that guilt by association with white supremacists is fundamentally valid, but I was heavily downvoted for my arguments. My priors have been confirmed, as the rationalists would say. Association…
Free clue: Calling a place a hellsite does not make your post more persuasive. Quite the opposite. It indicates that you aren't even bothering to try to persuade.
Re: Scott Siskind believes scientific racism is “probably partially correct”
#6For the last several days much of the discussion about Scott Siskind of Slate Star Codex has been about "guilt by association" with Charles Murray, Moldbug and other white supremacist and neoreactionary types. I firmly believe that guilt by association with white supremacists is fundamentally valid, but I was heavily downvoted for my arguments. My priors have been confirmed, as the rationalists would say. Association…
Free clue: Calling a place a hellsite does not make your post more persuasive. Quite the opposite. It indicates that you aren't even bothering to try to persuade.
Free clue: they probably already know that, and don't give a damn.
Learn to distinguish between ignorance and indifference.
Re: Scott Siskind believes scientific racism is “probably partially correct”
#7Siskind is very thoughtful and reads a lot. If, after weighing the evidence, he concluded that some of the white/black difference on IQ tests is probably genetic, that does not make him a bad person or a "white supremacist", unless he has advocated denying civil rights to blacks. He has not done so. There is much current discussion of how to deal with racial disparities in outcomes in employment and education. What t…
Yes, yes, that's the standard scientific racist line. "Oh we just care about educational outcomes".
IMO, anybody who takes Charles Murray seriously needs to be hit upside the head with a hardcover of Stephen J. Gould's The Mismeasure of Man, which exposed race-and-IQ studies for the racist bullshit they are in the 1970s, years before the publication of The Bell Curve.
Re: Scott Siskind believes scientific racism is “probably partially correct”
#8Siskind is very thoughtful and reads a lot. If, after weighing the evidence, he concluded that some of the white/black difference on IQ tests is probably genetic, that does not make him a bad person or a "white supremacist", unless he has advocated denying civil rights to blacks. He has not done so. There is much current discussion of how to deal with racial disparities in outcomes in employment and education. What t…
Why is it white supremacy and not Japanese supremacy, since Japanese have the highest average IQ in studies I've seen? White countries all lag behind east Asia.
It is really weird that Scott would be called a racial supremacist for exposing data that puts his race squarely in the middle of the pack.
Re: Scott Siskind believes scientific racism is “probably partially correct”
#9For the last several days much of the discussion about Scott Siskind of Slate Star Codex has been about "guilt by association" with Charles Murray, Moldbug and other white supremacist and neoreactionary types. I firmly believe that guilt by association with white supremacists is fundamentally valid, but I was heavily downvoted for my arguments. My priors have been confirmed, as the rationalists would say. Association…
Free clue: Calling a place a hellsite does not make your post more persuasive. Quite the opposite. It indicates that you aren't even bothering to try to persuade.
If your concern is more about this place being called a hellsite than the actual scientific racism at hand, then perhaps that says more about you than you might think.
Re: Scott Siskind believes scientific racism is “probably partially correct”
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
Free clue: Calling a place a hellsite does not make your post more persuasive. Quite the opposite. It indicates that you aren't even bothering to try to persuade.
Free clue: they probably already know that, and don't give a damn. Learn to distinguish between ignorance and indifference.
If so, and they post like that anyway, then they are coming close to violating the site guidelines.