Support NeoGAF

[Messofanego]

Many college speeches have QA sessions. I don't think I've been any where the speaker didn't have a QA session. I've seen a few get really heated too.

Personally, I'd rather call out charlatans in the public forum.

That's still not a debate. QA sessions are not a given and are usually only given 10-15 minutes at the very end. The questions can be dismissed or the mic can get taken away. You can't refute someone each step of the way. This wasn't Question Time.

 

[badcrumble]

Just like white nationalism was defeated? The only way to keep these ideas from going underground and gaining support from the next generation is to let these people talk, and refute their ideas (seriously not that hard to do).

Indeed, that's how the Civil War was won.

 

[entremet]

Ahh yes the Q&A where you get 30 seconds to ask a question and the speakers controls how much he's going to respond and how long.

Also Q&A where the organizers of the event aka the people who invited him can set it up anyway they see fit including in ways to ensure their side gets most of the questions....

Sure. But you do know that Charles Murray does still writes and speaks about this stuff. He also sits on advisory boards and writes for influential think tanks that have a direct effect on people's lives. A lot of this type of analysis is the crux of the charter school movement.

Look at this tripe:

https://www.aei.org/publication/intelligence-in-the-classroom/

The solution is not pretend he doesn't exist, but to get his shitty ideas out in the open were they are resisted and refuted again and again.

Middlebury, like most colleges, has a student newspaper and other forums were opponents of Murray's ideas can mobilize and counter his terrible ideas.

However, the common tactic of the Left of late, which I'm a proud member, is to forcefully silence these folks, instead of exposing and refuting.

The counterargument to that is, "But they already have been refuted"

I'm sorry, that's not how it works. This is an active process of resistance. If that was the case, why are these virulent ideologies resurrecting? You don't just defeat an idea once. It's a constant battle.

This is why, although I had major issues with him, I enjoyed Hitchens. He kept on punching and facing some of the maniacs throughout his life, in public forums, defeating their ideas head on.

I just cannot, in good conscience, agree with the current tactics we're using. I can't.

 

[Slayven]

Just like white nationalism was defeated? The only way to keep these ideas from going underground and gaining support from the next generation is to let these people talk, and refute their ideas (seriously not that hard to do).

This America, White Nationalism and racism are 39349293493499-0. The next generation is already racist as fuck look at Reddit or 4 chan. The problem is a lot of people opt in and out of this shit at will, cause honestly as a white straight dude it won't effect me one way or another. But not everyone has that super power or wish to use it.

Always goes

"BLM is marching down a highway to protest another person getting shot by the police, shame on them"

"College Professor to give talk on his book 'Blacks: People or Harumbe in drag?'. This I need to see"

 

[Riposte]

The value of debate is secondary to whether you think violence and intimidation (including running up security fees) is an acceptable way to enforce your ideas on your fellow citizen. A tangibly-related professor being physically assaulted and getting put into a neck-brace is the biggest story here, and I think that will only play into the hands of people with bad ideas. This isn't a weird outlier, but yet another instance where violence was deemed to be the acceptable answer by the good guys to a conversation they didn't like and can't truly stop anyway - a completely corrosive effect that will continue to bring out the worst in people.

 

[benicillin]

The solution is not pretend he doesn't exist, but to get his shitty ideas out in the open were they are resisted and refuted again and again.

This isn't correct. I mean if this actually worked then we wouldn't be where we are now.

 

[Mr. X]

Why is it the idea to fight back against harmful rhetoric to wait for them to bless you with an opportunity to speak and refute him in a room of like-minded ilk?

Confrontation and non-violent confrontation are the tried and true methods of besting these types of people throughout history. And it needs to stopped now before they gain more momentum.

 

[catbird]

These types of events don't allow for debate. I don't understand why the schools even allow them to come. If it was legit to allow them to debate then set up a moderator and have an actually opponent. Not students, who may not an equipped to debate an adult who is supposed to be some sort of expert. Otherwise you are allowing them to educate students in a bunch of hateful bullshit.

 

[Valhelm]

Think it's pertinent to share a story of Charles Murray's early life.

In America, Throwing a Curve, 1994

Mr. Murray fancies himself a social scientist, an odd choice of profession for someone who would have us believe he was so sociologically ignorant as a teen-ager that he didn't recognize any racial implications when he and his friends burned a cross on a hill in his hometown of Newton, Iowa.

In a New York Times Magazine article by Jason DeParle, Mr. Murray described the cross-burning as "dumb." But he insisted, "It never crossed our minds that this had any larger significance."

Or how about his years in Thailand, going from village to village to violently suppress left-wing organization?

Ethics and the Profession of Anthropology: Dialogue for Ethically Conscious Practice, 2002

The struggle between an establishment government and insurgent proportion of the population... by installing anti-infiltration devices, cutting communication lines, assassinating key spokesmen, strengthening retaliatory mechanisms and similar preventative measures... to counteract or neutralize the political successes already achieved by groups on the "wrong" side. This typically involves direct military confrontation.

Daring Research or 'Social Science Pornography'? 1994

Murray explains that he and a Peace Corps friend once sat for 12 hours at a place called the Patpong Terrace, interviewing bar girls as they returned from their liaisons, taking "all sorts of intimate notes about who did what, that I don't care to repeat." The resulting document became an underground thriller among his friends.

Murray also makes clear that he did more than take notes, though he theatrically objects to hearing the women described as prostitutes. "Don't use that word," he says. "They were women of the evening. Courtesans. We liked them, and they liked us.

"In a lot of the places you had to woo the ladies," he continues. "It involves money on the man's part, yes, but it also involves consensual relations."

He understands that he is describing a pastime not usually associated with a defense of the two-parent family. "I'm trying to tell you I'm not against sex," he says, characteristically blunt.

Before deciding to tear down welfare and revitalize scientific racism, Charles Murray entered policy as a major proponent of mass incarceration.

Juvenile Corrections and the Chronic Delinquent, 1977

in terms of delinquent behavior, corrections does not make kids worse. It makes them better. Much better, from the point of view of the community that must live with them.

In choosing among correctional alternatives, the reflexive assumption -that "less drastic is better" needs rethinking. As measured against the recidivism criterion, community-based alternatives were inferior to out-of-town ones. Alternatives that left the youth at home were inferior to residential ones.

Consider this before saying that this man deserves a platform.

 

[theignoramus]

Just like white nationalism was defeated? The only way to keep these ideas from going underground and gaining support from the next generation is to let these people talk, and refute their ideas (seriously not that hard to do).

Why do so many liberals believe this insane line of argument? Some of the most elegant orators, writers, and politicians to grace American soil made arguments against White supremacist segregation in the Southern United States and its reign of terror lasted from the end of Reconstruction to to 1965. Close to 100 years. And do you know what ended it? Fucking federal troops being sent into that area and enforcing the law with guns and ammo.
Racism isnt defeated with "debate", it's defeated by pounding it into submission, either by force of arms or (in South Africa's case) economic consequences.

 

[sturgboski]

At this point, most of the claims of bell curve are not really considered valid academic opinions. That said... I would rather people win with facts than protests here.



What's ironic is that by the same metric, whites would be inferior to asians, yet You don't hear that angle too much... wonder why.

Well there was that South Park episode...

 

[ugaboga232]

IQ was a mistake. Intelligence is such a nebulous and unbiological construct in this time that any arguments trying to distinguish groups of people using IQ tests or the like is a foolish errand.

 

[entremet]

This isn't correct. I mean if this actually worked then we wouldn't be where we are now.

You're looking at extremes here.

It is correct. Liberalism is winning. The issue is that you need to keep pounding these poor ideas into submission, yes intellectually as well.

Interracial marriage is a good example. The vast majority of Americans were against 50 or so years ago. That's not that case now.

That didn't happen magically. It happened by opposing racist demagogues, many of which controlled the public sphere at time. A quick look at old newspapers and you will see this.

 

[theignoramus]

This isn't correct. I mean if this actually worked then we wouldn't be where we are now.

Facts.
Racist propaganda works, what dont people understand about this and the thousands of historical examples that attests to this fact.

Birth of a Nation was "put out in the open" and debated "freely" by hundreds of protesters and organisers in the NAACP, and the net result was millions of Americans joining the Klan. America wouldve been in a better place if that filth had been straight up banned from cinemas on the basis of its hate speech, but it was allowed to flourish and fan the flames of racial hatred.

Hate speech laws and consequences for hate speech (jail, economic divestment) work.

 

[Ogodei]

How the fuck did Middlebury admin apologize to this asshole?

 

[theignoramus]

You're looking at extremes here.

It is correct. Liberalism is winning.

Its manifestly NOT winning right now in America and certain countries in Western Europe. We're in the midst of a hard right, White nationalist backlash.
And I dont consider interracial marriage a very good barometer of social progress anyway, Sheriff David Clarke and Justice Clarence Thomas are in interracial marriages, do you consider them proponents of "liberalism"? White supremacy has simply evolved, thats it.

 

[JordanN]

IQ was a mistake. Intelligence is such a nebulous and unbiological construct in this time that any arguments trying to distinguish groups of people using IQ tests or the like is a foolish errand.

This.

No one is born with a gene for science,math or leadership role. These are all things that are learned by anyone.

 

[Slo]

I strongly dislike the idea of deciding philosophical arguments based on who can punch the hardest, no matter how stupid the topic is.

If your ideas are better, they will win in an open debate.

 

[entremet]

Its manifestly NOT winning right now in America and certain countries in Western Europe. We're in the midst of a hard right, White nationalist backlash.
And I dont consider interracial marriage a very good barometer of social progress anyway, Sheriff David Clarke and Justice Clarence Thomas are in interracial marriages, do you consider them proponents of "liberalism"? White supremacy has simply evolved, thats it.

I can't say that there hasn't been progress. Their will always be backlash. The problem is that if you grew up in the 80s and 90s, like most of us here, we've seen tons of progress. But history is rarely an upward slant of progress. There are regressions and plateaus, but ultimately we are doing better as species.

Today is much better to be human than any other point in history. And that didn't come easy. Doesn't mean there won't be struggle. But I reject the idea there hasn't been any progress.

Liberalism has made massive strokes of progress.

 

[Vicetrailia]

I strongly dislike the idea of deciding philosophical arguments based on who can punch the hardest.

His stuff has already been decided. He has an agenda despite the arguments.

 

[Slo]

His stuff has already been decided. He has an agenda despite the arguments.

And?

 

[Pizza]

I think my friends and I all had our first celebrity crush on kairi since we all played kingdom hearts at the same time when it released, and we were her age

They started actively arguing over who liked her first/ who called her once one found out the other liked her and I decided getting too emotionally attached to fictional characters was dumb


Edit: hahahahaha this is absolutely the wrong thread.

 

[StrikeNinja24]

Head of dipshit club: "Hey guys, let's invite that eugenics author to come and give a talk at our overwhelmingly liberal college."

Dipshit club member: "That sounds like a great idea."

Honestly, at this point I feel like it's being done on purpose to vilify 'liberal schools'. There's really no other reason to bring attention like this to themselves.

 

[theignoramus]

I strongly dislike the idea of deciding philosophical arguments based on who can punch the hardest, no matter how stupid the topic is.

If your ideas are better, they will win in an open debate.

Did better ideas prevail in the American South for 200 years? Did they prevail when DW Griffith displayed Birth of a Nation in cinemas across America?

 

[Quixzlizx]

You don't engage to change THEIR world view. It's about the importance of facts and "truth" for truths sake.

Again it's a nuanced issue and yes the authors are racist. (Again, their hypocrisy on Asian iq)

The issue is nuanced. For example, if you have people take an IQ test (now) or GRE even, there is a clear, statistically significant difference for different racial groups. That's a fact.

A lot of research has gone into understanding what this means. Currently, no genetic factors have been identified. Also, correcting for factors like culture, socio economics, etc. Accounts for the issue in part. Moreover, there are biases in test taking performance itself such as stereotype threat, etc. There are even bigger questions about what IQ even means.

My worry is that by silencing racist or unappealing interpretations we concede facts to them. It's not that we deny the facts, we have better interpretations and more complete data.

They don't care about facts to begin with. They're just taking advantage of the fact that YOU care about facts.

How do you factually argue with a young earth creationist? That person's interpretation of the world rejects facts in favor of inviolable beliefs.

Edit: To be clear, I don't mean that the creationist is simply rejecting facts that disagree with his perspective. I mean he places no values on facts whatsoever, other than how he can use them to manipulate society into legitimizing and enforcing his beliefs.

 

[Vicetrailia]

And?

There's no philosophical argument to debate. There's nothing for you to have a problem with.

 

[aeolist]

You're looking at extremes here.

It is correct. Liberalism is winning. The issue is that you need to keep pounding these poor ideas into submission, yes intellectually as well.

Interracial marriage is a good example. The vast majority of Americans were against 50 or so years ago. That's not that case now.

That didn't happen magically. It happened by opposing racist demagogues, many of which controlled the public sphere at time. A quick look at old newspapers and you will see this.

it happened because violent protesters upset the status quo and forced establishment liberals to pass civil rights legislation in order to quiet things down, which led to a normalization of things like integrated bathrooms and interracial marriage. debating racists did approximately nothing.

 

[StrikeNinja24]

I think my friends and I all had our first celebrity crush on kairi since we all played kingdom hearts at the same time when it released, and we were her age

They started actively arguing over who liked her first/ who called her once one found out the other liked her and I decided getting too emotionally attached to fictional characters was dumb


Edit: hahahahaha this is absolutely the wrong thread.

Also, I found this amazing.

 

[entremet]

it happened because violent protesters upset the status quo and forced establishment liberals to pass civil rights legislation in order to quiet things down, which led to a normalization of things like integrated bathrooms and interracial marriage. debating racists did approximately nothing.

You're talking specifically about the Civil Rights Movement. And I agree with that. I'm talking about liberalism as a whole. It will face opposition in many circles. Charles Murray's ideas have already infected public education policy.

You don't fight that without vociferous opposition, across multiple arenas.

We're cool, though. We can have alignment as liberals, without total lockstep agreement.

 

[Calcaneus]

What's ironic is that by the same metric, whites would be inferior to asians, yet You don't hear that angle too much... wonder why.

They mostly ignore it and only acknowledge that point when they want to defend against accusations of racism. "How can we be white supremacists when we say asians are smarter than us?". Like most of their arguments, they think its airtight when nobody is actually being fooled by it. Everyone can see who the real target of all this Bell Curve bullshit is.

 

[Ogodei]

And?

Meaning he's not debating in good faith, he and the group sponsoring him don't care whether his ideas are "right," they're just interested in muddying the waters and pissing people off.

 

[kirblar]

You're talking specifically about the Civil Rights Movement. And I agree with that. I'm talking about liberalism as a whole. It will face opposition in many circles. Charles Murray's ideas have already infected public education policy.

You don't fight that without vociferous opposition, across multiple arenas.

We're cool, though. We can have alignment as liberals, without total lockstep agreement.

You have to treat someone like Murray differently than one of the "agent provocateur" neonazi types. The reason you need to interact here is because his ideas are out there in the academic sphere, and need to actively be pushed back on and discredited. This isn't someone trying to gain a platform, it's someone who already has one.

 

[Derwind]

I strongly dislike the idea of deciding philosophical arguments based on who can punch the hardest, no matter how stupid the topic is.

If your ideas are better, they will win in an open debate.

Ah yes, after 74 years existing on this planet, something is going to change that'll convince this man that my black ass isn't just inherently inferior because of the pigment of my skin.

If after this long and you still hold on to antiquated racist beliefs, then to what benefit am I gaining by helping further your hate?

Unless you want to believe you can turn a 74 year old man that has profited from his hate around?

In which case I say good luck, meanwhile, I will fight tooth & nail to barr him from speaking in any campus that I'm involved in.

Additionally, if he's coming for a speaking engagement, that is not an adequate venue for a debate in good faith but it's a brilliant soap box to promote his brand of hate.

 

[Seth Enosh]

Honestly, at this point I feel like it's being done on purpose to vilify 'liberal schools'. There's really no other reason to bring attention like this to themselves.

Charles Murray is a relatively mainstream right winger and a very popular and successful author who's been around for decades. He's a fellow at AEI which is a mainstream conservative organization. This isn't exactly Milo who is just a shock jock.

At this point I'm starting to wonder if Antifa and the SPLC would consider any republican a "white nationalist" and worthy of violent protests. IMO, it's be careful where you go in trying to violently suppress speech, because if you justify violence against half the country, at some point they start fighting back. And the craziest right wingers are the ones who have been stockpiling guns and ammo for decades expecting black helicopters and government persecution...

 

[Quixzlizx]

Charles Murray is a relatively mainstream right winger and a very popular and successful author who's been around for decades. He's a fellow at AEI which is a mainstream conservative organization. This isn't exactly Milo who is just a shock jock.

At this point I'm starting to wonder if Antifa and the SPLC would consider any republican a "white nationalist" and worthy of violent protests. IMO, it's be careful where you go in trying to violently suppress speech, because if you justify violence against half the country, at some point they start fighting back. And the craziest right wingers are the ones who have been stockpiling guns and ammo for decades expecting black helicopters and government persecution...

Where have you been?

 

[Seth Enosh]

Where have you been?

Good point. The election of trump could be seen as an overreaction by the right to violent protests.

What I'm really talking about though is mob violence in the other direction. So far I haven't heard of right wing mobs invading colleges and shouting down liberal speakers and assaulting them in the same way we are seeing here. (I guess the closest analogue would be some of the violent protests against Trump). A situation where right and left wing mobs are committing violence against each other frequently is a breeding ground for fascism, as occurred in mussolini's Italy and Nazi Germany.

 

[David H Wong]

This.

No one is born with a gene for science,math or leadership role. These are all things that are learned by anyone.

But there is a strong genetic link to intelligence, that's the scientific consensus. It's just impossible to quantify how much is genetic vs upbringing. Extending this to there being a link between genetics and RACE is where it gets dangerous, since so much of race is a social construct.

But yes everything we know about the subject suggests you're born with a genetic floor and ceiling to your intelligence. Opposing guys like this doesn't require denying genetics altogether. That would be silly.

 

[User Name Here]

Yeah we need to be considerate of the racists' feelings and safety while they instigate hate and violence towards others. Give hate a chance.

#FascistLivesMatter

Why do so many liberals believe this insane line of argument? Some of the most elegant orators, writers, and politicians to grace American soil made arguments against White supremacist segregation in the Southern United States and its reign of terror lasted from the end of Reconstruction to to 1965. Close to 100 years. And do you know what ended it? Fucking federal troops being sent into that area and enforcing the law with guns and ammo.
Racism isnt defeated with "debate", it's defeated by pounding it into submission, either by force of arms or (in South Africa's case) economic consequences.

#FascistIdologiesMatter

But, yeah, you don't need to read much of any of this guy's work to draw an accurate conclusion that he's racist.

 

[David H Wong]

Charles Murray is a relatively mainstream right winger and a very popular and successful author who's been around for decades. He's a fellow at AEI which is a mainstream conservative organization. This isn't exactly Milo who is just a shock jock.

At this point I'm starting to wonder if Antifa and the SPLC would consider any republican a "white nationalist" and worthy of violent protests. IMO, it's be careful where you go in trying to violently suppress speech, because if you justify violence against half the country, at some point they start fighting back. And the craziest right wingers are the ones who have been stockpiling guns and ammo for decades expecting black helicopters and government persecution...

This is my problem. You could take ANY subject - from the budget to health care to border policy to criminal justice reform - and simply say the person on the right is being racist. "You want less funding for public schools, that will hurt poor minorities, therefore you are a racist, therefore we are going to use a mob action to prevent you from speaking."

It's bizarre how we treat racism like it's a form of mass hypnosis, like if people are exposed to these ideas they will be helpless to resist, and will be turned into Nazis against their will.

Yeah - if you're that afraid of ideas, it means deep down you think your side might be wrong.

 

[User Name Here]

This is my problem. You could take ANY subject - from the budget to health care to border policy to criminal justice reform - and simply say the person on the right is being racist. "You want less funding for public schools, that will hurt poor minorities, therefore you are a racist, therefore we are going to use a mob action to prevent you from speaking."

It's bizarre how we treat racism like it's a form of mass hypnosis, like if people are exposed to these ideas they will be helpless to resist, and will be turned into Nazis against their will.

Yeah - if you're that afraid of ideas, it means deep down you think your side might be wrong.

Or you might be afraid of racist ideology spreading like wildfire. People don't always question what they read or hear. They often just accept it as fact. Like people that believed everything Trump was saying.

 

[junpei]

This is my problem. You could take ANY subject - from the budget to health care to border policy to criminal justice reform - and simply say the person on the right is being racist. "You want less funding for public schools, that will hurt poor minorities, therefore you are a racist, therefore we are going to use a mob action to prevent you from speaking."

It's bizarre how we treat racism like it's a form of mass hypnosis, like if people are exposed to these ideas they will be helpless to resist, and will be turned into Nazis against their will.

Yeah - if you're that afraid of ideas, it means deep down you think your side might be wrong.

You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can't say “nigger” — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”

- Lee Atwater Republican party strategist and advisor to Ronald Reagan.

 

[aeolist]

This is my problem. You could take ANY subject - from the budget to health care to border policy to criminal justice reform - and simply say the person on the right is being racist. "You want less funding for public schools, that will hurt poor minorities, therefore you are a racist, therefore we are going to use a mob action to prevent you from speaking."

It's bizarre how we treat racism like it's a form of mass hypnosis, like if people are exposed to these ideas they will be helpless to resist, and will be turned into Nazis against their will.

Yeah - if you're that afraid of ideas, it means deep down you think your side might be wrong.

i think you'd have a stronger argument if we were talking about a guy whose body of work isn't largely about racist pseudoscience proving the inferiority of black people.

if you can't call charles murray a virulent racist then that label applies to literally no one.

 

[theignoramus]

Think it's pertinent to share a story of Charles Murray's early life.

In America, Throwing a Curve, 1994



Or how about his years in Thailand, going from village to village to violently suppress left-wing organization?

Ethics and the Profession of Anthropology: Dialogue for Ethically Conscious Practice, 2002

Daring Research or 'Social Science Pornography'? 1994


Before deciding to tear down welfare and revitalize scientific racism, Charles Murray entered policy as a major proponent of mass incarceration.

Juvenile Corrections and the Chronic Delinquent, 1977



Consider this before saying that this man deserves a platform.

So rather than just coming out and saying "nigger, nigger, nigger, nigger", he prefers the Lee Attwater style of racism couched in classic dog whistles that serve as red meat for his audience.
Its easy enough to rebut clowns like this without extending them personal invites to your academic space to whip up the student body into a frenzy. Didnt we learn this from Milo? Simple research brought that idiot down, not hosting him on college campuses and inviting him onto late night shows.

 

[Sianos]

These types of events don't allow for debate. I don't understand why the schools even allow them to come. If it was legit to allow them to debate then set up a moderator and have an actually opponent. Not students, who may not an equipped to debate an adult who is supposed to be some sort of expert. Otherwise you are allowing them to educate students in a bunch of hateful bullshit.

Exactly. I've heard valid arguments for heavily moderated debates with people holding abhorrent beliefs wherein the representative for the "minorities are human beings" side of the argument is a skilled rhetorician with a deep knowledge of sociology.

But if someone is going to make those arguments, I'm holding whatever debate happens to those standards. They don't get to argue for such a specific case, then turn around and try and push through uncontested lectures from racist bullshit peddlers under the cover of saying "but you agreed to a 'debate'!"

How about we don't put psuedoscientific snake-oil drivel on a pedestal without competent rebuttal? These damn nationalist snowflakes who can't handle the complexities of in-depth sociology and the implications that it carries for the narratives they constructed to bolster themselves are afraid of any competent rebuttal, because as David implies their fear demonstrates that they must know on some level how wrong they are, judging by their shouting over anything the "academic elite" says and their continued attempts to poison the well of any terms developed in an attempt to simplify the presentation of complicated ideas.

And yeah, I don't want the core of the left to end up like that either. Debate is important.

But if they ask for a debate, they better damn well get a competent debate. Not a chance to parade their bullshit around unchecked so people can blather about like "well gee, out of context and with no fact-checking this guy makes some good points about the superiority of the white race".

 

[Zaru]

IQ was a mistake. Intelligence is such a nebulous and unbiological construct in this time that any arguments trying to distinguish groups of people using IQ tests or the like is a foolish errand.

IQ is not the end-all be-all determinator of intelligence or success but it is WAY too heavily correlated to both in the context of a modern, developed society to just say "well it's not perfect so let's just say it's meaningless".
After all the criticism IQ has received, has anyone come up with anything objectively better that can be determined in reasonable time? Genuinely asking.

No one is born with a gene for science,math or leadership role. These are all things that are learned by anyone.

That's a meaningless platitude. What they're born with is a potential which they might or might not reach and a base advantage or disadvantage compared to the average person. The average IQ of various scientific fields/study majors is not 100. Stuff involving more abstract thinking and math is 120+, which means a large chunk of the population would have a VERY hard time trying to get into those fields.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Charles Murray is a relatively mainstream right winger and a very popular and successful author who's been around for decades. He's a fellow at AEI which is a mainstream conservative organization. This isn't exactly Milo who is just a shock jock.

At this point I'm starting to wonder if Antifa and the SPLC would consider any republican a "white nationalist" and worthy of violent protests. IMO, it's be careful where you go in trying to violently suppress speech, because if you justify violence against half the country, at some point they start fighting back. And the craziest right wingers are the ones who have been stockpiling guns and ammo for decades expecting black helicopters and government persecution...

I mean he literally believes in racial genetics being an indicator of likely intelligence and poverty level... This guy literally believes certain races are genetically more likely to have higher or lower IQs

 

[Quixzlizx]

Good point. The election of trump could be seen as an overreaction by the right to violent protests.

What I'm really talking about though is mob violence in the other direction. So far I haven't heard of right wing mobs invading colleges and shouting down liberal speakers and assaulting them in the same way we are seeing here. (I guess the closest analogue would be some of the violent protests against Trump). A situation where right and left wing mobs are committing violence against each other frequently is a breeding ground for fascism, as occurred in mussolini's Italy and Nazi Germany.

Clearly, violent racism in this country didn't exist until oppressed white men were triggered by some asshole being shouted down at some university.

 

[Valhelm]

So rather than just come out and saying "nigger, nigger, nigger, nigger", he prefers the Lee Attwater style of racism couched in classic dog whistles that serve as red meat for his audience.

He's a lot like a smarter, older Richard Spencer. You can sell any idea, no matter how regressive, if you use polite language that seems reasonable.

 

[George Washington]

There is absolutely no scientific merit to what he is claiming and it has already been debunked; rather than going back and doing more research, he has taken it upon himself to continue preaching this lie which means it has devolved into his personal belief with no scientific merit whatsoever.

He should not be allowed to speak.

Edit:

He is also a racist because he still believes in this.

 

[theignoramus]

IQ is not the end-all be-all determinator of intelligence or success but it is WAY too heavily correlated to both in the context of a modern, developed society to just say "well it's not perfect so let's just say it's meaningless".
After all the criticism IQ has received, has anyone come up with anything objectively better that can be determined in reasonable time? Genuinely asking.

That's a meaningless platitude. What they're born with is a potential which they might or might not reach and a base advantage or disadvantage compared to the average person. The average IQ of various scientific fields/study majors is not 100. Stuff involving more abstract thinking and math is 120+, which means a large chunk of the population would have a VERY hard time trying to get into those fields.

Those tests are a baseline indicator of what intellectual level the test-taker is at when he/she takes it, it's a snapshot in time & not some kind of intellectual glass ceiling that White racists claim applies to a whole groups. It's useful for identifying the intellectually gifted, who are pre-disposed to score in the 99th percentile on those tests, but that's about it.