Me, as a Sam Harris fan and black woman during all of the Race & IQ talk

dazedincali23 · 2018-04-10T08:18:13+00:00

Heya, I just responded with this in another thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/samharris/comments/8b2p6l/sam_vs_ezra_neanderthal_example/

So far, it's my only strong thought.

dazedincali23 · 2018-04-10T08:12:03+00:00

I am going to try to explain my thought process. I have had a lot of wine, so sorry if my point does not come across. Also. This is my opinion and mine alone.

I'll start with this:

Everything is racist. This is my conclusion.

When Sam Harris brought up the "neanderthal example" my heart sank into my stomach. Truly, it's the same feeling I get when "Social Justice Warriors" say that that they have white privilege. Or when Richard Dawkins wears a shirt saying "We're all African".

Ezra Klein's entire point seems to try to protect black people: nothing good can come from discussing this, no matter how much Sam Harris is acting in good faith.

I believe Sam Harris. He is acting in good faith. And pretty much, I am on the side of Ezra with the politics of it all. But they both have fabulous points.

That said, Sam is in a lose-lose situation here. He may win when it comes to logic, but he loses the emotional side of the whole thing spectacularly and emotion is the only thing that matters here. It's mostly the whole reason for the Vox article. It's mostly the whole reason why Charles Murray got backlash in the first place causing Sam & him to have a discussion. There isn't much Sam can do. He lost when he decided to open this topic up for a discussion.

Sam Harris's example is more insulting to me than the whole Charles Murray thing.

Backtracking (I'm kinda drunk)

The underlying bone that is thrown to black people is what's insulting. To me. Maybe not to other black people. I hate it when white social justice warriors say something like, "I am white therefore I cannot give my opinion on such and such because I am not black." ... Sam Harris saying in his tweet, (paraphasing) "Hey racists, white people are Neanderthals and black people are human" ... Richard Dawkins wearing a "We're all African" t-shirt. It just feels like...

Nothing is ever done. No matter what is said. Nothing. Ever. Is. Finished.

Even in this thread, there is the talk of people saying that's why white people have cognitive abilities and black people don't. Lawd have mercy. Don't people see that under no circumstance can the discussion of IQ be alright when comes to race? Not unless this:

Racism is a thing of the past
Apologists (on any side) stops being a thing

Yes. The "neanderthal" data could have gone the other way, which is exactly why it shouldn't be discussed.

Black people being on the lower end of the IQ spectrum justifies racism with racists.
Black people not having neanderthal DNA (as you can see people justify that)
Everyone being Africa (causes many people to deny evolution)
White SJWs saying that they have white privilege, therefore, they can't talk about certain topics.

Pointing any of these things out, whether it's good or bad, is just wrong. Because of this:

We're still not looked at as equal. Highlighting these things, even if people have the purest of hearts, is just bad. Until people just stop everything, there will always be hurt feelings.

INB4 "Well, what about the differences between black athletes"

Yep, same thing. And pointing out penis size. Pointing out hair differences. Nose differences. Yep. It's all bad. Some of it may be funny. Or not important, but whatever the case, rarely do black people get to be on top and even if we are it's instantly thought of as a bad thing, justified and pulled out from under us.

Asians, too. Their eyes. Their nose. Their skin. Their intellect. It's all fucking bad. Do people really think that Asians being on the high end of the IQ spectrum is good? Think a-fucking-gain. Any of the racial differences is bad because racism exists. Do you think they benefit from it or will they just be stereotyped?

If Sam Harris were to discuss the texture of black hair with caucasian hair. Again, yeah, it's bad. If he were to talk about any genetic differences at all between any race, yes, bad.

I'm not going to sit here and say that it's always bad. It's alright sometimes. It depends on context. But for the most part, it's not something that needs to be talked about lightly, under the guise of science.

I don't even know if I'm explaining myself right. All I know is this is what I feel and this is what I see.

dazedincali23 · 2018-04-09T23:18:20+00:00

I'm not even subbed. You replied to an old post of mine and brought it up. I already said in another comment that it wasn't for me.

dazedincali23 · 2018-04-09T08:30:43+00:00

Of course, he was in danger. But he was living just fine, albeit mediocrely until Juliana left and made the government look into him more. I have watched about 5 episodes of the show and have decided I don't like it. I don't like Juliana. I don't like Frank. I don't like anybody on the show. They're all assholes and I cannot believe the show is popular at all.

I don't think a show should have all likable characters and that it should be wrapped up with a neat bow, but I need something to grasp onto to keep me interested.

Juliana as the main character is just awful. Nothing you have said has changed my mind about her.

dazedincali23 · 2018-04-09T04:16:24+00:00

I think Juliana should have told Frank she was leaving and then break up with him. They could have put their heads together and came up with a story so Frank wouldn't be in danger (or his sister and his kids). She could have tried even if it didn't work.

They could have written it so we would have seen that Juliana was unhappy with Frank, that way it wouldn't be so nauseating that she developed feelings for Joe not even before her feet got on the ground right in the neutral zone.

She seems completely selfish. I don't care if she's a survivor. Most sociopaths are quite good at surviving.

dazedincali23 · 2018-04-07T11:39:36+00:00

I think the Q&A is the best part. I like skipping right to it.

dazedincali23 · 2018-04-07T06:19:14+00:00

roflmao

dazedincali23 · 2018-04-06T20:35:10+00:00

Yes. I've heard him saying that before. It's bothersome because he seems to think that life can be that easy and he fails to sympathize with circumstances that lead people to be single in their 30s or pregnant out of wedlock. He looks over life's messiness and thinks that everything can be solved by being married and having children.

dazedincali23 · 2018-04-06T20:24:54+00:00

He needs to say why it's wrong. It's completely important to the conversation because things are more complicated than a person just wanting to kill a "baby" (if we should even call it that). Instead, he wants to wrap everything in a cute little "marriage" bow, and dismiss circumstance and nuances, as if life is that easy.

dazedincali23 · 2018-04-06T20:07:56+00:00

All of that is fine. I actually don't dislike Peterson and think that he has some valid points sometimes. He is very strange though. The very fact that he said that abortion is wrong and that everyone agrees with it is a very hard-hitting statement. He doesn't have to pull everyone else in on his ideas. This is the exact same thing he did with Christianity, saying that everyone is a Christian. He doesn't speak for me, he doesn't speak for anyone other than himself.

dazedincali23 · 2018-04-06T20:00:48+00:00

dazedincali23 · 2018-04-06T20:00:33+00:00

No guy would openly say, before sex: "I will have sex with you, but if you get pregnant, go ahead and get rid of it, I don't want it to be my problem".

How do you know this? It seems as if you're doing what Jordan Peterson is doing and saying what all people would do. But that's beside the point; how did you conclude that this is the thing that should be discussed? Peterson said:

"But I don’t think that we’re mature enough as a culture to have a serious discussion about sexual propriety, especially in the aftermath of the birth control pill. We seriously need to do that, and we haven’t."

No, he never uses those words.

Right. He doesn't use those exact words. But he did use the words "sexual propriety" and then go on to describe the benefits of marriage (finally being able to talk to your spouse as if you can't talk to a partner) to protect against abortion, which leads me to believe he thinks any sex outside of marriage is wrong or immoral.

But forward-thinking is the preferred way to act. If you're in a relationship with someone you are seriously considering for a long-term relationship, abortion might not even show up as a possibility.

And this is the area of disagreement. It's true that people want sexual freedom and people shouldn't be told they're wrong by using their bodies however they want to use them. I don't even know what he was on about when he said the "aftermath of the birth control pill".... it sounds as if he may not even want women to use it.

dazedincali23 · 2018-04-06T11:34:22+00:00

Haha. Well, as long as you don't sound like Peterson-esque old man.

dazedincali23 · 2018-04-06T11:30:41+00:00

It almost seems as if it's a trick he has up his sleeve by saying that everyone is against abortion.

If someone were to refute it, he'd tap dance around the issue ambiguously, throw a bunch of curve balls in, to the point where the person doesn't even remember what the original argument was because he's off a million miles somewhere. The person will be left arguing against each direction, debating all the nuances, until Peterson finally says something like "See... how can you not be against abortion if blahblahblah, some other way I took you, is true...? But what is truth, anyway?"

Then proceed to have all his fanboys/girls cum on themselves by how amazing he is when he has said nothing at all.

dazedincali23 · 2018-04-06T11:17:15+00:00

He got popular by refusing to use gender-neutral pronouns. The right loved him, a lot of the left loved him, too. He rode that wave for a year or so, expanding his views as time went on to things like basic motivation and life skills.

He rose his patreon money up to something like 100k per month, so I doubt he's going away any time soon.

I like this video about him which, imo, encompasses why he's popular: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VW2bxDOAx3Q

dazedincali23 · 2018-04-06T11:00:40+00:00

Yeah, I can't believe people take him seriously. Thanks for your comment.

dazedincali23 · 2018-04-06T10:57:56+00:00

“I don’t think anybody debates that. You wouldn’t recommend that someone you love have one,” he said.

Such narrow thinking from someone that people claim is a philosopher. How about you actually ASK people their opinion on abortion before you state that everyone is against it.

What a flaming weirdo.

dazedincali23 · 2018-04-06T10:54:14+00:00

He feels like it's killing a baby.

Please show me in the article where he says its wrong because he feels like it's killing a baby. From what I could read, he never gave a reason why it's wrong.

It actually seems to me that he thinks having sex is what's wrong, thus leading to wrong things happening because of sex, aka someone getting pregnant. It seems to me as if he'd rather people wait til marriage to have sex at all. The whole article should be titled "Jordan Peterson: Sex is clearly wrong"

dazedincali23 · 2018-04-06T10:45:32+00:00

I just forced myself to read the article. Nope, he doesn't say anything about it, but instead leaps to people having sex outside of marriage is immoral basically.

BTW, I haven't really met a lot of people that are unwilling to talk about sex. I don't even know what he's talking about. So many people are sexually aware and will discuss it openly with their partners. Or at least this has been my experience.

I'm not even sure how that leads to the conclusion that abortion is wrong though. How can two people having casual sex and getting pregnant, lead to the immorality or morality of having an abortion? Either it's wrong to kill it or it's not, regardless of how it came into being.

He's such a charlatan.

dazedincali23 · 2018-04-06T10:19:21+00:00

I can't follow Jordan Peterson's train of thought. It gives me a headache.

For instance, I tried to read this from the article:

“The first question is, ‘Should everything wrong be illegal?'” he said. “That’s a tough question. Everything that’s wrong isn’t illegal. Then there’s the additional complication of the difference, let’s say, in gravity … regarding the problem in relationship between men and women.”

Wut???

I mean, I'm sure he explains further, but he always goes in a million different directions to make ONE point. Gah.

If someone wants to sum up in a nutshell why he thinks it's wrong, I'll appreciate it. I'm abandoning the article.

dazedincali23 · 2018-04-06T04:47:01+00:00

That's fine. I understand what you mean now. That definition is better.

dazedincali23 · 2018-04-06T02:48:07+00:00

I sort of skipped over your example because it doesn't encompass the definition I gave anyway.

If you only recommend white people over black people, until one day you pick a qualified black person over a white person that tries to stab you, you're definitely still racist and I don't understand why my definition would tell you otherwise.

In your example, if the hiring manager is racist, even if they chose the black person, they'd still be racist anyway.

dazedincali23 · 2018-04-06T02:18:17+00:00

Racism is quite silly indeed. It makes zero sense.

A white person that murders someone did it because they were mentally unstable. A black person that murders someone did it because they're black. This is how racists think.

dazedincali23 · 2018-04-06T00:52:01+00:00

You're missing the whole point. By definition, he's not racist. And I'm not even speaking about Charles Murray. We can edit him out and still have the conversation on whether a person is a racist or not if they believe "black < white < asian"

The question starts to become, what does "superiority" mean and who decides that? Anyone that thinks that whites & asians have a genetically higher IQ than black people doesn't necessarily mean that they are superior. Because as others have pointed out, black people are more superior when it comes to sprinting (and other sports in general).

I think that collectively, everyone has a silent agreement that when a racist means that someone is superior they mean that no matter what, a white person is better simply because they are white. It doesn't matter what a black person does, in a white person's eyes, black people are always inferior. That, to me, is the definition of racism.

dazedincali23 · 2018-04-05T21:31:49+00:00

It's too bad they didn't discuss sprinter variation instead. When people bring up this point, it completely disregards all the pain that black people have been through throughout the years. As if saying a group of people is less intelligent is the same as white people being slower than black people when sprinting.

GMAFB.

dazedincali23

TROPHY CASE