This entire conversation started because a centrist attacked anyone not in the centre with horseshoe “theory”. Either everyone who isn’t in the dead centre - another dubious term that is actually synonymous with conservatism - is either a tankie or a nazi, or we’re right to criticise the use of the term in this context.
If you use it to mean all extreme positions, you’re still wrong because tankies aren’t leftists. I was conceding a small kernel of truth to the idea, not that the idea itself is an acceptable way to analyse politics.
Also “higher IQ”? That’s pretty much just a racist position, and I don’t agree there’s such a thing as a “principled racist” since race itself is a bullshit concept.
Race is not scientific, so you don’t get to racism through study and learning, you get there by believing bullshit propaganda, like for instance that some races are inherently more intelligent than others, like you apparently believe. EDIT: If you don’t believe it and are just using it as an example of racist beliefs that’s unclear, but it’s not that relevant to my point.
And you’ve totally dropped the subject of the horseshoe. Sounds like you’ve noticed that walking back what it stands for makes no sense in light of how it was used in this thread.
The horseshoe subject is not that interesting, can’t add much to that discussion. I’m using the example is racist beliefs to show you can be internally consistent as a racist.
And a consistent racist would point out the book The Bell Curve as proof of his beliefs. I still can’t see any inconsistency of this world view. There was a debate between a Twitter racist and a liberal dude and they never got anywhere. I’m not sure if you’re interested in following this thread, though
The Bell Curve was rightly ridiculed as a “scabarous piece of racial pornography” and there is no credible thread of thought that upholds it. Anyone interested in “principles” would be able to see that.
And oh my god someone on twitter was not convinced by their interlocutor? Clearly they have reasonable and internally consistent beliefs.
If you actually can’t tell apart the arguments of racists and the arguments of anti racists then you’re not paying attention to the content of those arguments, only their aesthetics.
It was obvious you had nothing to contribute to the horseshoe discussion ages ago when you boiled the entire political landscape down to tankies, nazis and “based centrists”. The fact you keep suggesting that pseudo-scientific racist beliefs like those from The Bell Curve are actually consistent with themselves is evidence that you lack even the most basic political education. In other words, you are a typical centrist.
You’re doing the same thing everyone does arguing against racist beliefs and that’s assuming the conclusion.
‘Anyone interested in “principles” would be able to see that.’ but clearly, people don’t all believe the same things. Just saying your opinion is obvious doesn’t actually convince anyone
If you actually can’t tell apart the arguments of racists and the arguments of anti racists then you’re not paying attention to the content of those arguments, only their aesthetics.
This is also not an argument, since you’re assuming everyone will come to the same conclusion, which hasn’t been proven
The fact you keep suggesting that pseudo-scientific racist beliefs like those from The Bell Curve are actually consistent with themselves is evidence that you lack even the most basic political education. In other words, you are a typical centrist.
You are dismissing my argument without actually answering it
Also, notice you said political education, but the argument about race is scientific in nature. It wouldn’t make any difference what the politics of a person are, as long as they win the scientific debate.
It’s like trying to say flat Earthers are wrong because they are conservatives. No, they are wrong because the Earth isn’t flat. The fact that they believe a bunch of conspiracy theories doesn’t mean anything if you can’t put an argument together for why Earth is round.
You can call them anti-scientific until you are blue in the face, but they have heard it all.
The introductory references on the topic, which you can find at the bottom of the page, have these titles:
“A brave old world: an analysis of scientific racism and BiDil”
“Human races are not like dog breeds: refuting a racist analogy”.
“How Scientific Taxonomy Constructed the Myth of Race”
It’s all there in black & white, very simple to understand. This isn’t some controversial topic. It has experts in consensus on one side and politically motivated propaganda on the other. It has been this way for a very long time. It is a settled question. If you don’t understand that it’s because you don’t care to read and learn. At this point if you choose to continue in your ignorance it is entirely on you.
This entire conversation started because a centrist attacked anyone not in the centre with horseshoe “theory”. Either everyone who isn’t in the dead centre - another dubious term that is actually synonymous with conservatism - is either a tankie or a nazi, or we’re right to criticise the use of the term in this context.
If you use it to mean all extreme positions, you’re still wrong because tankies aren’t leftists. I was conceding a small kernel of truth to the idea, not that the idea itself is an acceptable way to analyse politics.
Also “higher IQ”? That’s pretty much just a racist position, and I don’t agree there’s such a thing as a “principled racist” since race itself is a bullshit concept.
To a principled racist race is not a bullshit concept, so they are entirely consistent
Race is not scientific, so you don’t get to racism through study and learning, you get there by believing bullshit propaganda, like for instance that some races are inherently more intelligent than others,
like you apparently believe.EDIT: If you don’t believe it and are just using it as an example of racist beliefs that’s unclear, but it’s not that relevant to my point.And you’ve totally dropped the subject of the horseshoe. Sounds like you’ve noticed that walking back what it stands for makes no sense in light of how it was used in this thread.
The horseshoe subject is not that interesting, can’t add much to that discussion. I’m using the example is racist beliefs to show you can be internally consistent as a racist.
And a consistent racist would point out the book The Bell Curve as proof of his beliefs. I still can’t see any inconsistency of this world view. There was a debate between a Twitter racist and a liberal dude and they never got anywhere. I’m not sure if you’re interested in following this thread, though
The Bell Curve was rightly ridiculed as a “scabarous piece of racial pornography” and there is no credible thread of thought that upholds it. Anyone interested in “principles” would be able to see that.
And oh my god someone on twitter was not convinced by their interlocutor? Clearly they have reasonable and internally consistent beliefs.
If you actually can’t tell apart the arguments of racists and the arguments of anti racists then you’re not paying attention to the content of those arguments, only their aesthetics.
It was obvious you had nothing to contribute to the horseshoe discussion ages ago when you boiled the entire political landscape down to tankies, nazis and “based centrists”. The fact you keep suggesting that pseudo-scientific racist beliefs like those from The Bell Curve are actually consistent with themselves is evidence that you lack even the most basic political education. In other words, you are a typical centrist.
You’re doing the same thing everyone does arguing against racist beliefs and that’s assuming the conclusion.
‘Anyone interested in “principles” would be able to see that.’ but clearly, people don’t all believe the same things. Just saying your opinion is obvious doesn’t actually convince anyone
This is also not an argument, since you’re assuming everyone will come to the same conclusion, which hasn’t been proven
You are dismissing my argument without actually answering it
Also, notice you said political education, but the argument about race is scientific in nature. It wouldn’t make any difference what the politics of a person are, as long as they win the scientific debate.
It’s like trying to say flat Earthers are wrong because they are conservatives. No, they are wrong because the Earth isn’t flat. The fact that they believe a bunch of conspiracy theories doesn’t mean anything if you can’t put an argument together for why Earth is round.
You can call them anti-scientific until you are blue in the face, but they have heard it all.
I am repeating the scientific consensus that race is not a scientific concept. It is a political concept.
Here is the wikipedia article on scientific racism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism
The introductory references on the topic, which you can find at the bottom of the page, have these titles:
“A brave old world: an analysis of scientific racism and BiDil”
“Human races are not like dog breeds: refuting a racist analogy”.
“How Scientific Taxonomy Constructed the Myth of Race”
It’s all there in black & white, very simple to understand. This isn’t some controversial topic. It has experts in consensus on one side and politically motivated propaganda on the other. It has been this way for a very long time. It is a settled question. If you don’t understand that it’s because you don’t care to read and learn. At this point if you choose to continue in your ignorance it is entirely on you.