amazingly fucked up that the NYT is uncritically publishing the claim, “Race has some biological reality.”
that is, definitionally, racism. textbook.
that is, definitionally, racism. textbook.
Comments
Whereas, saying that Chinese women have small fingers is ... racist pseudoscience based on the vibes of white "experts."
Racists believe what they CHOOSE!!!
https://www.psychiatry.org/news-room/apa-apology-for-its-support-of-structural-racism
It's so funny for anyone who live through the ratings on television and music debate in the '90s.
" Trigger warnings"... Are you opposed to ratings on movies, You dip s***?
It might get kids to read more.
“Hey listen here you kids, we the wise conservative adults have concluded that this shit is WAY too awesome for you. Whatever you do, do not look at this curated and age appropriate material and instead go to google and…”
;-)
That way people who are upset by trigger warnings about trigger warnings can have a trigger warning to be ready for the trigger warning about the trigger warning about the trigger warning.
And then the trigger warnings will just freeze in the winter.
https://pxlnv.com/blog/american-iphone-fantasy/
It's the age old "only we really know the truth".
I have to respeKKKt their hustle
It’s obviously got some basis
White supremacy is a contradiction in terms.
https://bsky.app/profile/gbrockell.bsky.social/post/3lpwdlst6rk2x
I've always regarded it to be like accents within the same country. We can sound very different but we are all the same. I just try to see and accept humanity in all its diversity...
I understand there are variations within humanity but I do not accept that they diminish any of us. The idea is preposterous but unfortunately real for too many,
I think the issue is with what the term "Race" refers to.
In its inception (in imperialist / colonialist Europe), "race" referred to a comprehension of the people of the world falling into distinct categories...
I'm pretty sure this isn't what you're thinking of! The question then becomes ..
(I have an issue here with American discourse, to be quite honest, but that's an aside).
In the US, its usually used for how people are percieved as to belonging to different social groups (based on their looks and heritage).
They're literally a garbage publication and there's so much to document that.
No one has ever cared.
NYT has been consistent as an uncritical mouthpiece for racism for decades.
Exactly.
I remember back in the day getting in a verbal fistfight with a professor of political science who insisted NYT was a paper of record and my ORIGINAL sources were not acceptable
We fought in front of the class for the whole class.
Dumb Bitch.
(Except the race thing, fuck that)
It's one of the reasons at this point these newspapers should be thrown in the trash were they belong.
It's equivalent to saying "some days are hot". It's mindless drivel.
“In white. Therefore, I’m right” is not an argument, NYT pedo. Drop dead, cracker.
That explains why we've twice elected the most openly racist President in the past century.
(Also, decline doesn't have to mean a perfectly straight line down)
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8568288/
5 seconds later:
"racism has been in decline."
https://bsky.app/profile/coreyatad.com/post/3lpu5dctsnk2d
carried in our blood,
really is true.
You, and I,
in fact everyone,
all over the world,
we're all literally
African,
under the skin.
Old fashioned concepts of race
are not only socially divisive, but scientifically wrong.
DR. SPENCER WELLS
https://youtu.be/P6nEGfcwMNA?si=Wf18lgh6jAKrQ_P5
Kay... 🫠
Wtf is wrong with people?
They will only get worse & worse. The new Daily Mail.
By design, by MAGA mgmt and owners.
That is why it was controversial when it was introduced in the 60s or whenever it was. Pinker is here again demonstrating enlightenment in an anachronistic way. As usual.
There’s a podcast about it:
I know that many adults, especially older adults, still read one words at a time and frequently have to read aloud under
Back to the Pinker op-ed, his rhetorical technique was to allude to "contrarian" views relating to race and then throw in the recerence to phonics. Because many people know this situation with reading curricula and phonics. So it adds a contact point of credibility for readers. Hey, maybe ...
... all that race stuff has a basis like the phonics stuff does.
Last thing. And I say this as the most left person I personally know, at least in the 1990s through 2000s the curricular wars, parallel with cultural wars, had conservatives correct on teaching reading and math. Blame Rousseau. Correct in that ed research bears it out.
No, just familiarity with how reading is almost universally taught in American schools. In a nutshell: not with phonics. Since the demise of the very popular Lucy Calkins curricula things might be different now.
Most kids learn to read to some extent regardless of the method. 20 something ...
... years ago my oldest son totally failed to read in 1st grade. Classmates picked it up. But the handful of "reading strategies" they used turned out, for him, to essentially sabotage learning. Almost all words were "sight words". No sounding out. So its hard to read words you havent been taught
I taught him to read at home. We started with basic letter sounds and sounding out "cat", "bat", "mat". If you can say "hat", how would you spell it? And so on.
... on criticism of the Lucy Calkins curriculum.
This is case of following the data, etc
So rhetorically Pinker argues that because he is correct on one controversy, by some Latin phrase to be inserted, he is correct on them all
As an Ashkenazi Jew, I can fully state dumbasses abound.
These racists *hate* the idea that they got ahead because society gives a boost to white dudes.
Or at least, start assuming those are genetic.
Also it would be very strange if he thought that race was just about skin color, hair, etc.
He is using "biological reality" to imply that 1. there are reliable cognitive and behavioral differences between those groups, and by extension 2. this matters to how we run society
i.e., equivocation
Now he has a better chance of getting you to agree with the lies that come next.
Largely on people who, unlike you, don't have the critical thinking skills to ever question their own priors
To imagine or argue they do is racism in the classic, evil sense, fabricating justifications to subjugate others.
distortions
and categorical
alterations to how we are each socialized
according to how we are designated
obstacles & hurdles
cliches
typecasts
reinforcement
and discouragement
varying
due to such
The New York Times DID publish Steven Pinker’s silly claim, but it clearly labeled it “OPINION - GUEST ESSAY”. Far-right critics claim the Times doesn’t have enough diversity of viewpoint. You claim it has too much.
Maybe the truth is somewhere in the middle.
That’s okay!
Beware the extremists. ISIS doesn’t have any “secret insight” into . . .
anything!
And neither does the American Nazi Party.
Which is why I think they’re so obsessed with Marxism when nobody else is. 🤭
But I should stop since I’m not really making a very profound point.
Lumping that together with phonics and "marriage reduces crime" as all being "politically incorrect" topics is a straight up attempt to normalize eugenics and racism
If all of you people who keep publishing links — and thus funneling traffic — to horrific NYT takes would just...stop doing that...we can make the paper irrelevant and impotent.
Want me to show you how?
I don't personally like my feed that way but it's not hard.
Anyone confronts them, they can retreat into claims like "obviously all I mean is skin colour is hereditary! How can you say it isn't?" or some similar BS.
But everyone knows they're defending 19th-century racial pseudoscience.
It's dopamine dependency mixed with an unwillingness to enact stable boundaries.
Sad state of affairs for everyone. 😔
https://help.nytimes.com/hc/en-us/articles/360003499613-Cancel-Your-Subscription
Harvard professor of 22 years discovers that different decisions have different outcomes, some you might like and some you might not.
For someone who used to be lauded as one of the great thinkers of our times, this is some extraordinarily lazy bullshit that I’d be embarrassed to say in public.
Next up: poachers cause elephants.
comic.
https://bsky.app/profile/joolia.bsky.social/post/3lpwokddpo22k
Anyway,
🫠
wrt:markets ( they found their niche )
"the principle of really existing free market theory is: free markets are fine for you, but not for me. "
🙃
https://chomsky.info/19960413/
Herrnstein and Murray lowered the bar, asserting a race/IQ correlation without even an coefficient of determination.
To anyone confused:
Race does not have any biological reality
Human variation has biological reality. That variation is continuous throughout the species.
— Ta-Nehisi Coates
This obsession about excluding certain variants needs to be put to rest.
You know what's less human than me?
Gorillas, dogs, cats, dolphins...etc.
For example, libs wouldn’t deny that Africans were involved in trans-Atlantic slave-trade, we just don’t think it gives the Confederacy a “pass” over the damn civil war (that they lost!)
African slavery was mostly about warfare and debt. It was generally not life-long slavery and it was certainly not hereditary slavery.
the taiping rebellion took place around the same time, 30 million died, and it took 15 years for them to be put down
To which I reply, "because white people outlawed emancipation and they had to 'own' their family members."
But the only reason "Africans sold slaves" would be relevant is if you don't see injustice as proportional power. It only makes sense if you need perfect victims for a good/evil binary.
Lib: "No I do--"
Maga: "Black people did slavery too!"
Lib: "ok b--"
Maga: "so see, black people are evil!"
Lib: wtf?
This article makes it very clear that arguing for race as basis for treating people or groups differently makes no sense.
https://archive.ph/XpaC6
He is misusing the article to give credibility to his blatant racism.
THAT is context and it is being abused.
These clowns are weaponizing legitimate research for their culture war by stripping it of context and deliberately misunderstanding it.
When they're proven wrong - its the scientist who they slandered who gets the blame.
"I think the answer is obvious: We should both recognize that genetic differences between males and females exist and we should accord each sex the same freedoms and opportunities regardless of those differences." /1
1. Make an outrageously bigoted statement with some mealy-mouthed qualification tacked on
2. When Very Intelligent idiots have adopted 1. into use because they can't see step 2. form a mile away, drop the qualification and just press on with the outrageous bigotry
what I meant is that even the other guy he pointed to as the supposed scientific expert for his "race means something important for society" doesn't agree with him, at least not in that particular opinion piece
These people sound fucking ridiculous.
Allow me to quote System of a Down:
ALL RESEARCH AND SUCCESSFUL DRUG POLICY SHOWS THAT TREATMENT SHOULD BE INCREASED AND LAW ENFORCEMENT DECREASED WHILE ABOLISHING MANDATORY MINIMUM SENTENCES.
When putting forth a meritless argument, it's better to answer questions you wanted critics to ask and not answer the questions they actually asked.
But obviously, and unfortunately, that is not what the average Black man looks like.
It’s in favor of almost everything decent people oppose.
Heck, they even both have Arthur Brooks on staff.
NYT actively takes stances and promotes ideas that imply the public good is irrelevant.
And then wonders why democracy is collapsing.
It's not close.
A difference in degree not kind.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/bfopinion/race-genetics-david-reich#.bi00VOnb5
The orthodoxy goes further, holding that we should be anxious about any research into genetic differences among populations.
Nowhere in that sentence can the claim “he ignores how the concept of race can be used” be read
You can deny something is a core issue without denying something is an issue entirely
Please parse more
To be a better person can you tell me why?
Thanks and appreciated,
Cagedfox
People didn't stand up when they talked their segregation shit about and I doubt they'll stand up to this too
It seems in trend to just let bigotry flow freely nowadays as long as it uses the word "biological"
Because that’s the only context I can think of that makes this make sense.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/opinion/sunday/genetics-race.html
#BoycottMSM
These facts are either partially correct or just so imprecise as to be useless.