Conservative National Review columnist recommends: "avoiding all black people"

[Tarquelne]

No it isn't. The NRO is the leading conservative magazine in the US. I'm glad the writer was fired for this article.

(I'm assuming you're not being sarcastic... "Fox news is the leading news organization...)

"National Review" may be. And it certainly once was. But, sorry, in my experience NROnline is... OK, maybe "as bad as WND" is too much. Maybe it's the place where NR writers can post without actually thinking first?

The real problem is that while WND is so obviously nutty NRO insinuates itself into the public discourse by sometimes being sane or even correct. But, by in large, IME the world would be a better place without it. Not because I disagree, but because people come away from it misinformed overall.

My perspective, btw, is someone who spent a significant amount of time for several years reading it during online-debates. So my perspective is certainly oppositional. (I think the thing that finally got me was after spending so much effort examining the *arguments*, I'd later find out the NRO statements were commonly factually incorrect. Annoying.)

OTOH, I don't have such a low opinion of every conservative or conservative-leaning publication.

 

[Ayn Rand]

I love censorship. This guy is only voicing what a lot of people think in private, it would have been much better IMO to either ignore it or have a discussion about it.

 

[downtown]

I love censorship. This guy is only voicing what a lot of people think in private, it would have been much better IMO to either ignore it or have a discussion about it.

Free market brah. Advertisers flee magazines that publish racist things.

 

[emzie]

I love censorship. This guy is only voicing what a lot of people think in private, it would have been much better IMO to either ignore it or have a discussion about it.

The magazine is merely looking out for its own rational self interest.

 

[kochman]

I love censorship. This guy is only voicing what a lot of people think in private, it would have been much better IMO to either ignore it or have a discussion about it.

Free market brah. Advertisers flee magazines that publish racist things.

The magazine is merely looking out for its own rational self interest.

You two are exactly right... they lose business when stuff like this is printed. What about the editor that approved this story? Or was this an editorial? I didn't see the exact context.

 

[Ayn Rand]

You two are exactly right... they lose business when stuff like this is printed. What about the editor that approved this story? Or was this an editorial? I didn't see the exact context.

I think it was his online blog. But he left the permitted discourse, whether privately or professionally, and now he has been purged. And we're all better off for it.

 

[useless]

I love censorship. This guy is only voicing what a lot of people think in private, it would have been much better IMO to either ignore it or have a discussion about it.

Then those people are also racist.

 

[kochman]

Everyone is a rayssiss, gah

 

[useless]

Yes, you are a racist if you believe that a certain race or certain races are inherently:

Stupid
Atavistic/Prone to committing crimes
Superior
More intelligent
Lesser beings
Should be exterminated
and other negative, disgusting beliefs.

Also, I didn't say that everyperson was a racist, I said those that share Derbyshire's beliefs are.

 

[Ayn Rand]

Yes, you are a racist if you believe that a certain race or certain races are inherently:

Stupid
Atavistic/Prone to committing crimes
Superior
More intelligent
Lesser beings
Should be exterminated
and other negative, disgusting beliefs.

In other words, anyone who looks at crime statistics and sees the clear racial differences in offending rates must immediately refuse to accept the evidence in front of their eyes. If they accept this objective evidence, they are racist.

This is why the term "racist" doesn't have any meaning any more. The only way someone could not be a racist [by this incorrect definition] is to

a) Never see any of the evidence on racial differences in offending rates

b) See the evidence but refuse to accept it

Which means that the "non-racist" people are those good, obedient people who have an in-built reality filter, and who form their opinions based purely on peer pressure and social conformity.

 

[civ_king]

Yes, you are a racist if you believe that a certain race or certain races are inherently:

Stupid
Atavistic/Prone to committing crimes
Superior
More intelligent
Lesser beings
Should be exterminated
and other negative, disgusting beliefs.

Also, I didn't say that everyperson was a racist, I said those that share Derbyshire's beliefs are.

If someone stays clear of black males with grills, tattoos, pants sagging at the knees etc. but doesn't try to stay clear of black males in suits or other professional attire are they racist?

 

[useless]

In other words, anyone who looks at crime statistics and sees the clear racial differences in offending rates must immediately refuse to accept the evidence in front of their eyes. If they accept this objective evidence, they are racist.

This is why the term "racist" doesn't have any meaning any more. The only way someone could not be a racist [by this incorrect definition] is to

a) Never see any of the evidence on racial differences in offending rates

b) See the evidence but refuse to accept it

Which means that the "non-racist" people are those good, obedient people who have an in-built reality filter, and who form their opinions based purely on peer pressure and social conformity.

Just for the record, are you saying that blacks are inherently criminal (or more so than whites)?

 

[Ayn Rand]

Just for the record, are you saying that blacks are inherently criminal (or more so than whites)?

No not at all - I'm saying that you can't determine a priori that there are no racial differences. No matter how urgently necessary it is to your morality, racial similarity or difference in these areas is determined by evidence and fact - not by people who decide beforehand what is or is not possible.

Under you definition of racism, anyone who prefers facts to a priori assertion is a racist.

 

[Core Imposter]

If someone stays clear of black males with grills, tattoos, pants sagging at the knees etc. but doesn't try to stay clear of black males in suits or other professional attire are they racist?

Wait, what is a grill? Are you refering to some black guy carting a stolen smoker down an alley? Or does this another term for still another hair style? And since when has sagging pant knees been an issue? Have we moved on from arse ends hanging out? Did I miss that?

Personally, I try to stay clear of females with tattoos. Does that make me a misogynist?

 

[Skwink]

Wait, what is a grill? Are you refering to some black guy carting a stolen smoker down an alley? Or does this another term for still another hair style? And since when has sagging pant knees been an issue? Have we moved on from arse ends hanging out? Did I miss that?

Personally, I try to stay clear of females with tattoos. Does that make me a misogynist?

A grill is kinda like braces.

 

[Crezth]

In other words, anyone who looks at crime statistics and sees the clear racial differences in offending rates must immediately refuse to accept the evidence in front of their eyes. If they accept this objective evidence, they are racist.

More responsible dialogue is in trying to uncover why those statistics differ across races. The lazy way out is to chalk it up to some inherent racial thing, despite no conclusive evidence that this is the case.

 

[Ayn Rand]

More responsible dialogue is in trying to uncover why those statistics differ across races. The lazy way out is to chalk it up to some inherent racial thing, despite no conclusive evidence that this is the case.

This opinion makes you a racist. Welcome to the club

 

[Crezth]

This opinion makes you a racist. Welcome to the club

Ha ha. I personally chalk up the differences (and they are discrete and countable) due to socio-economic conditions, apartheid, and discrimination that persists into modernity. I forget who it was that said the IQ test results would be a lot more meaningful if African-Americans hadn't suffered from all those years of slavery, been subsequently sequestered into their own racial communities and ghettoes, and then tested very clinically by out-of-touch white, male scientists.

The effort to reduce the humanity of blacks by pointing at statistics on crime and intellect is a post-hoc justification for the continued inequality, and is no substitute for, y'know, restructuring the system in such a way as to eliminate that inequality.

 

[Ayn Rand]

Ha ha. I personally chalk up the differences (and they are discrete and countable) due to socio-economic conditions, apartheid, and discrimination that persists into modernity. I forget who it was that said the IQ test results would be a lot more meaningful if African-Americans hadn't suffered from all those years of slavery, been subsequently sequestered into their own racial communities and ghettoes, and then tested very clinically by out-of-touch white, male scientists.

The effort to reduce the humanity of blacks by pointing at statistics on crime and intellect is a post-hoc justification for the continued inequality, and is no substitute for, y'know, restructuring the system in such a way as to eliminate that inequality.

I agree - I may have missed it, but where did the author of the blog say that the differences were purely biological in nature?

 

[Crezth]

I agree - I may have missed it, but where did the author of the blog say that the differences were purely biological in nature?

By not treating the subject with a level of more involved discourse, he was irresponsible in his treatment of it. This is because it's quite easy to assume that there are biological differences if you leave the question sitting out by itself, since it's not intuitive to think that other conditions might be the cause. The only stated correlation is blacks-to-intelligence, hence the problem.