The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersGene Expression Blog
Open Thread, 1/11/2015
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

I’m pretty busy now with non-internet related stuff (i.e., life), so not giving much thought to what’s going on in the big wide world. But I do want to say something about the goings on in France.

First, it’s really fucking offensive to me that social-justice-warrior types decide to tell me what’s offensive and/or racist every fucking day every fucking way. Or as they would say “gross” and “problematic”. The reality here is that a certain element of the far cultural Left is really only interested in persuading everyone else on the Left. There’s no attempt to communicate with someone who doesn’t already share their values/axioms/priors. People often ask me why I identify as conservative. It’s because of people like Jacob Canfield, who wrote In the Wake of Charlie Hebdo, Free Speech Does Not Mean Freedom From Criticism. In it Canfield renders judgement on what is, and isn’t, racist in terms of critiquing Islam. The question is who the fuck is Jacob Canfield to make this sort of judgement? He’s free to express his opinion, but why the hell is this bullshit lighting up my Facebook feed? A guy who graduated from a $50,000-tuition-a-year Carleton College must be able to school everyone about privilege from on high I suppose. He knows all about Islam and racism, since he’s neither from a Muslim background nor non-white. Of course neither of those are necessarily germane, but from Canfield’s perspective they are…except if you’re a social-justice-warrior, and all those issues about “whitesplaining” go out the window, because you mean well or whatever, and have paid to sit in seminars where you learn to say all the stupid catchphrases that suggest to insiders you are one of them. I’m sick of this. It makes me want to retch. This is what passes for “progressive”? Yep, I’m definitely a conservative.

Second, a lot of readers here think that they’re awesome geniuses because they’ve read a lot of Artkos‘ books (or perhaps they have been exposed to Mencius Moldbug). Don’t worry about explaining all that to me, I know most of those ideas. I’m broadly sympathetic to skepticism of democracy, and even some aspects of modern liberalism. Second, me censoring on this website isn’t at all the same as the government censoring. Anyone claiming equivalence is stupid. You don’t read this website to listen to everyone’s opinion on everything. Most people have stupid opinions. Why listen? Also, there’s a difference between social sanction for opinions and killing someone (or to a lesser extent imprisoning them) for an opinion. That’s obvious. There are some similarities between the zeal with which the cultural Left censors on politically correct grounds, and religious blasphemy, but as I’ve stated for years I am not convinced that the idea of political religion is coherent, though I’m still open to the idea.

I do appreciate original thoughts though, so keep them coming. Though they are few and far between from what I can see. Finally, remember that “open thread” means you can talk about anything topically.

 
• Tags: Miscellaneous, Open Thread 
Hide 104 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. “Also, there’s a difference between social sanction for opinions and killing someone (or to a lesser extent imprisoning them) for an opinion. That’s obvious.”

    They are different, but they achieve very similar goals. The goal of punishing speech is:

    1) Control the public discourse
    2) Shape the way society functions

    If getting people fired is enough to achieve those goals than why kill them?

    It’s obvious that economic and social carrots and sticks practiced in the west are enough to control and shape society, often into rather terrible things such as importing all of these unassimilable Muslims.

    Part of the reason we use non-violent means of control today is that we can afford it and they work well. Such measures weren’t always affordable in the malthusian world, regimes simply had to kill people to shut them up because there wasn’t any other way. Today we have other tools, but the goals and results are the same.

    I’ll admit that violent and non-violent speech repressions are different if you’ll admit they accomplish basically the same thing. And in todays world this suppression of free speech has led to absolutely suicidal actions in the west.

  2. while I agree with your rejection of the dumbo undergrad left on this, I think you’ll find a lot of the intellectual left on your side here… e.g. zizek.

  3. Was always curious: what is the deal with Canadian Indians? The data I’ve seen says they score higher on IQ than black americans, and yet having dealt with them and blacks a lot I find it really hard to believe. Also: why are Canada’s Natives such a huge social problem and not as much in USA, or perhaps central & south America? You know how La Griffe de Lion has the Fundamental Constant of Sociology (1 SD)? IN Canada it’s 8, as in Indians are 8 times more likely to murder/rape/be in jail.

    I do a lot of reading on genetics but I can’t find much on Canadian Indians.

    • Replies: @omarali50
    @Curious Canadian

    I am not convinced that genetics explains much of these differences in criminality. Aggregate criminal behavior is mostly a cultural issue. Even if a given population has a lower average IQ, if they are socialized successfully (using varying combinations of carrots and sticks...in some but not all cases, more stick than carrot) they can have very low rates of criminality. Among the cultural memes that seem to matter are whether we are being given the constant lesson that our current status in society is a crime commited by the rest of society, which explains ALL of our shortcomings, and for which we have the right to get back at everyone else; note that this involves no judgment on whether it IS the fault of the rest of society. It may well be, but if that is not what we are being taught by sympathetic sections of the dominant elite, we may not pick the victim-liberationwarrior theme. Culture matters.
    This is more or less anecdotal and/or subjective impression in my case. Better read people may have specific examples and data to back this up (or to correct my misconceptions)

    Replies: @omarali50, @CupOfCanada

  4. I for one have never been able to wrap my mind around the idea that an all powerful and loving god needs us to kill for him. An all powerful being can surely handle its own wet work.

  5. I’ll admit that violent and non-violent speech repressions are different if you’ll admit they accomplish basically the same thing.

    speech/ideas are not just a means. to some extent they are an ends. we can have discussions about what happens in regards to ends in a variety of ways. but if one of the fundamental things about western culture for many people is that you don’t get killed for what you say. you may disagree, but that’s a disagreement about what western culture is.

    while I agree with your rejection of the dumbo undergrad left on this, I think you’ll find a lot of the intellectual left on your side here… e.g. zizek.

    sure. i don’t think even think a majority of the left of center is with this sort. but the fact that they are entertained shows how far the ‘discourse’ has gone.

    • Replies: @asdf
    @Razib Khan

    What matters is can someone say something without having their life destroyed. If the answer is no then only a few fringe cases are going to say the truth, and very few people with something to lose will touch the truth. The purpose of discourse is to understand reality so that we can improve it.

  6. First, it’s really fucking offensive to me that social-justice-warrior types decide to tell me what’s offensive and/or racist every fucking day every fucking way.

    Why the fuck do you care what a leftist thinks? You’re a conservative – do you lose your shit if some reactionary over at NRO tells you that Only True Conservatives oppose something? I really doubt it.

    I mean, Jesus, it’s almost as if “The Left” or “progressives” don’t all speak with one voice. And of course it’s especially weird when you then go and say this afterwards-

    Most people have stupid opinions. Why listen?

  7. Why the fuck do you care what a leftist thinks? You’re a conservative – do you lose your shit if some reactionary over at NRO tells you that Only True Conservatives oppose something? I really doubt it.

    no one keeps sharing NRO on my facebook feed.

    • Replies: @Rafe Kelley
    @Razib Khan

    There in lies the rub, as someone who operates in similar socially liberal mileiu I find myself driven crazy by the constant stream of the most extreme liberal craziness on my facebook feed.

    I often wonder if other people are tied into networks that are as crazy but on the right, perhaps if I had been raised in christian family in oklahoma and worked in local business, I would be outraged all the time about stupid creationists, appeals to biblical authority, and austrian economic rants. Given my west coast location, career and education those are not the stupid pieties I find myself exposed to all the time.

    I understand it just a result of normal cognitive biases but it drives me crazy how oblivious the average liberal I know is to just how crazy the extremists are and how much their own thinking is effected by ideas coming out of critical theory, post structuralism and third wave feminism. When you point out the fundamental ideas people people on the left deride them but they still end up operational thinking about gender as being entirely social constructed, or being shocked when someone points out that rape as an act of power is incoherent.

  8. PZ Myers and his acolytes have pushed the same drivel this Canfield person wrote in that terrible article for years. I am not so sure they actually believe these things, rather they want to be seen as the white people who “get it.” The SJWs are the most self righteous people in America.

    These think pieces by sanctimonious SJWs give nominal condemnation of the killings, but concede the killers at least had a point. All of this drivel just to prove they are not racist.

  9. @Razib Khan
    I’ll admit that violent and non-violent speech repressions are different if you’ll admit they accomplish basically the same thing.

    speech/ideas are not just a means. to some extent they are an ends. we can have discussions about what happens in regards to ends in a variety of ways. but if one of the fundamental things about western culture for many people is that you don't get killed for what you say. you may disagree, but that's a disagreement about what western culture is.

    while I agree with your rejection of the dumbo undergrad left on this, I think you’ll find a lot of the intellectual left on your side here… e.g. zizek.


    sure. i don't think even think a majority of the left of center is with this sort. but the fact that they are entertained shows how far the 'discourse' has gone.

    Replies: @asdf

    What matters is can someone say something without having their life destroyed. If the answer is no then only a few fringe cases are going to say the truth, and very few people with something to lose will touch the truth. The purpose of discourse is to understand reality so that we can improve it.

  10. Razib, haven’t you said once or twice that what is considered to be traditional morality actually arose relatively recently? There was a sketch on MTV’s “The State” a couple of decades ago called “The Old Fashioned Guy” where the humor more or less revolved around this idea.

  11. What matters is can someone say something without having their life destroyed. If the answer is no then only a few fringe cases are going to say the truth, and very few people with something to lose will touch the truth. The purpose of discourse is to understand reality so that we can improve it.

    yeah. good point. i’ll have a follow up post when i have time fleshing out these issues. though do note that this sort of rationale is a lot like those who argue for ‘positive liberalism,’ where the gov. must enable freedom via redistributionism (i.e., the right to something is not relevant if you don’t have the economic ability to practice it).

    • Replies: @asdf
    @Razib Khan

    There are several issues here:

    1) Actual government infringement of free speech backed by force (hate speech laws, etc).

    I take it you against these if you have an "stridently support an absolutist stand on free speech."

    2) Speech doesn't cause the government to land you in jail, but it may punish you in financial ways.

    Pulling funding and/or fining you. Regulations, etc. I think of those wedding cake people that were sued into the poor house because they wouldn't make some gay persons wedding cake. Basically the government saying you aren't going to have a good job and/or be able to run a profitable business if we don't like what you said, even if we don't throw you in jail.

    3) Individuals and companies who respond to the threat of #2 by preemptively firing someone. In this case the government didn't actually *DO* anything, but the known threat of action was enough to make private actors act on their behalf.

    4) Private individuals who try to destroy peoples lives just because they don't like what they said. Think the Mozilla CEO that got fired. Or any SJW Twitter crusade ever.

    All of these fall in the realm of free speech. The fourth may not be a matter of public policy, but its a matter of public ethics. It's simply wrong to do, and I don't see how you can avoid ethically criticizing people who do this.

  12. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    An idly curious question: if there are certain traits (traceable to genetic changes) that are common to different tamed species, are there any known examples of the reverse process taking place (i.e. being able to genetically quantify the loss of certain traits among a tame population which returned to the wild)? One example that came to mind was the dingo, but my brief reading of wikipedia seemed to indicate that the extent of tame ancestry is not completely clear in this case. With no expert knowledge, I would have guessed that “wild horses” in North American have not been wild for long enough for a measurable effect to have taken place.

  13. “There are some similarities between the zeal with which the cultural Left censors on politically correct grounds, and religious blasphemy, but as I’ve stated for years I am not convinced that the idea of political religion is coherent, though I’m still open to the idea.”
    Have you read Paul Gottfried’s Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt: Toward a Secular Theocracy?
    It might be of interest although like you I’m ambivalent about this outlook.

  14. Well I don’t know about the Theory of Political Religion, but I do see many striking similarities between this “SJW” wing of the Left (perhaps we should call it the radical New Left) and cults. And more broadly, I think many of the same cognitive processes involved in religious practice also underlie many people’s political thinking.

    Regarding Canfield’s post, I agree with his point that people should be free to criticize the Hebdo cartoons, but I haven’t seen, nor does he provide any evidence of, anyone arguing the contrary. The support for Hebdo has clearly been about people’s right to express controversial or provocative viewpoints without being murdered. Any definition of “freedom of speech” would have to include that right at a minimum. “Freedom of speech” that includes a right to not have your “speech” criticized is a blatant contradiction, and no one is advancing such a position.

    Also, he evidently thinks Muslims are a race. Or perhaps this is yet another redefinition of the term “racism”, and now any criticism of any group whatsoever (excepting straight white men) is forbidden. Regardless, his ranting is truly bizarre. Why should any belief system be beyond criticism/mockery?

    • Replies: @Wilkey
    @tokugawa

    "Well I don’t know about the Theory of Political Religion, but I do see many striking similarities between this “SJW” wing of the Left (perhaps we should call it the radical New Left) and cults. And more broadly, I think many of the same cognitive processes involved in religious practice also underlie many people’s political thinking."

    I used to believe the similarity between the Left and religion was entirely unintentional, but I'm now almost inclined - almost inclined - to believe it is deliberate, using every tool of religious indoctrination to brainwash people into the Religion of Political Correctness, or whatever you may wish to call it, with the absolute key distinction being that it is an undeclared religion.

    High schools may still be able to teach Isaiah or the Gospel of Matthew as literature, SFAIK, but they cannot teach them as scripture. But so long as "The New Colossus" or The Crucible remain just a poem and a play, respectively, they can be taught as truth. That would not be the case, were they ever made scriptures in the Religion of Political Correctness. And it will continue to get worse. That's the one thing you can be sure of.

  15. the left is so tolerant that, even though i work for one of the most powerful SJWs in the world, i feel perfectly comfortable using my real name while expressing my opinions online. <—-sarcasm

    i always tell my dad that i'm not really *that* conservative, i just look like i am because I'm surrounded by flaming Marxists.
    i still wonder though, if our free speech in the U.S. is really that much more limited than "back in the day" (like some people are implying) but just limited in a different way. (ex: can't discuss race anymore but *can* discuss sexuality, etc.)
    also, i've been noticing a lot of Stormfrontesque "Holohoax" comments spattered across the web in regards to the limits of free speech. but they hate Jews, though, so are they pro-gunman when it comes to the Jewish deli shootout? i guess they'd probably say they hate both jews AND muslims. also strange how they disparage blacks yet resort to "Illuminati" type conspiracy theories just like many blacks do.

  16. As Jerry Coyne was trying to point out the SJW types don’t even understand the context of the cartoons and leap to the assumption that they are racist. Many of my, less thoughtful, colleagues don’t even realise that Charlie Hebdo is a left wing magazine and are convinced by dishonest arguments from people such as Glen Greenwald that the magazine wouldn’t dare criticise Israel or Jewish people in the same manner. A French mathematician in my circle of friends has gone nearly mad trying to explain the true situation online. I find it disturbing that so many people no longer believe, leaving aside their mistaken conceptions, that free speech requires the defence of unpopular or unpleasant ideas.

  17. I know I’ve linked to him before, but you really should read Freddie DeBoer more. Even though he comes at things from a totally opposite political persuasion from you (he’s a left-wing socialist, I actually realized recently he was part of the same study group that I was over ten years ago) he’s become disgusted with the modern cultural left because he’s realize that most statements (at least online) are really intended as tribal signifiers rather than anything to effectively cause social change. Here was his take on the non-debate in response to attacks in France. This post last year, came very close to making the same points that you make. Not that I think he would convert you to revolutionary socialism or anything, but it shows that disdain for those kind of people crosses the political spectrum.

    As to your broader points, to me the strangest thing about complaining about the (comparably mild) social sanctions against some speech in modern liberal democracies is that every society on earth has had some combination of social and often legal sanctions against certain speech. Human societies require social norms, and social norms must be enforced somehow, even if merely through mockery and shunning. I don’t think it’s defensible to argue that any illiberal societies (either historic or current) have ever been more socially permissive (perhaps for the ruling classes at times, but certainly not the average Joe). I’m also guessing (given my knowledge of neoreaction) the ideal government of many posters would actually have more social (and legal) sanctions on speech – just different ones, ones which mysteriously align with the attitudes of the posters.

    What I guess I’m saying is if you want to consign liberalism to the dustbin of history, so be it. There’s aspects of liberalism, like meritocracy, that I personally find deeply problematic. But you shouldn’t, as a traditionalist or neoreactionary conservative, advocate for the abandonment of liberalism by arguing that it isn’t sufficiently liberal. Maybe it exposes hypocrisy, sure, every person is a hypocrite to some degree, and all human governments, cultures, and political systems, as creations of humans, also must have some level of hypocrisy built into them.

  18. Deadly violence and social sanctions as means of censorship can be complementary.
    After Stalin killed everyone who voiced dissent his successors were able to maintain control over the terrorized soviet population largely without using violence. Losing their job or their house and becoming a social pariah were punishments that combined with the threat of violence deterred almost all critics.
    I believe that even in the West most people are not willing to suffer social sanctions that impact their lives just for the satisfaction of stating a truth.

  19. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4613491,00.html
    further complicating things: apparently Charlie editors petitioned to ban Front National back in the 90s

  20. “Cartoonists tend to be white men” made me laugh so hard I nearly ruptured myself.

  21. Frenchman living in the US here.

    Charlie Hebdo was the most left-wing, anti-racist, pro-immigrant of all notable French publications. Bar none.

    The holier-than-thou reaction from some segments of the American left has been quite depressing.

    I can understand the misunderstanding, so to speak. Language barrier, outrageous style, lack of context, different cultural traditions (especially with regard to the relationship with religion – the French left is much more anti-clerical than the Anglosphere left, possibly because of the Catholic church).

    What I can’t understand is people who just make things up. Some dude in the New Yorker says Charlie wrote “anti-immigration polemics”? No, they wrote pro-immigration polemics, and they savaged politicians who pushed restrictions on immigration.

    Glenn Greenwald goes full retard and says Charlie Hebdo didn’t attack Israel – are you fucking kidding me?

    Whatever. Four million people just walked out in the streets today. By coincidence, the two heroes of the situation happen to be muslims – the dead cop and the guy who saved customers in the jewish shop. Some good may still come out of this mess.

  22. Whitesplaining is a good word. Now I have a term I can retroactively apply to all those humanity/social issue classes I had to take in college.

    I think terms like ‘progressive’ or ‘conservative’ have gotten a bit diluted by punditry. I know they probably mean something real, but when I hear ‘progressive’ I instantly think of Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh’s rants about femnazi’s and the corresponding counterrants, and I can’t get my concept of ‘conservative’ divorced from homophobes who think Jesus rode dinosaurs. I don’t know who this Canfield person is, but the way you describe him makes him sound like a caricature clickbaiter.

  23. social-justice-warrior types decide to tell me what’s offensive and/or racist every fucking day every fucking way

    That whole Puritan gene thing can be very useful when it’s directed at practical stuff like clean water supplies.

  24. @tokugawa
    Well I don't know about the Theory of Political Religion, but I do see many striking similarities between this "SJW" wing of the Left (perhaps we should call it the radical New Left) and cults. And more broadly, I think many of the same cognitive processes involved in religious practice also underlie many people's political thinking.

    Regarding Canfield's post, I agree with his point that people should be free to criticize the Hebdo cartoons, but I haven't seen, nor does he provide any evidence of, anyone arguing the contrary. The support for Hebdo has clearly been about people's right to express controversial or provocative viewpoints without being murdered. Any definition of "freedom of speech" would have to include that right at a minimum. "Freedom of speech" that includes a right to not have your "speech" criticized is a blatant contradiction, and no one is advancing such a position.

    Also, he evidently thinks Muslims are a race. Or perhaps this is yet another redefinition of the term "racism", and now any criticism of any group whatsoever (excepting straight white men) is forbidden. Regardless, his ranting is truly bizarre. Why should any belief system be beyond criticism/mockery?

    Replies: @Wilkey

    “Well I don’t know about the Theory of Political Religion, but I do see many striking similarities between this “SJW” wing of the Left (perhaps we should call it the radical New Left) and cults. And more broadly, I think many of the same cognitive processes involved in religious practice also underlie many people’s political thinking.”

    I used to believe the similarity between the Left and religion was entirely unintentional, but I’m now almost inclined – almost inclined – to believe it is deliberate, using every tool of religious indoctrination to brainwash people into the Religion of Political Correctness, or whatever you may wish to call it, with the absolute key distinction being that it is an undeclared religion.

    High schools may still be able to teach Isaiah or the Gospel of Matthew as literature, SFAIK, but they cannot teach them as scripture. But so long as “The New Colossus” or The Crucible remain just a poem and a play, respectively, they can be taught as truth. That would not be the case, were they ever made scriptures in the Religion of Political Correctness. And it will continue to get worse. That’s the one thing you can be sure of.

  25. @Razib Khan
    What matters is can someone say something without having their life destroyed. If the answer is no then only a few fringe cases are going to say the truth, and very few people with something to lose will touch the truth. The purpose of discourse is to understand reality so that we can improve it.


    yeah. good point. i'll have a follow up post when i have time fleshing out these issues. though do note that this sort of rationale is a lot like those who argue for 'positive liberalism,' where the gov. must enable freedom via redistributionism (i.e., the right to something is not relevant if you don't have the economic ability to practice it).

    Replies: @asdf

    There are several issues here:

    1) Actual government infringement of free speech backed by force (hate speech laws, etc).

    I take it you against these if you have an “stridently support an absolutist stand on free speech.”

    2) Speech doesn’t cause the government to land you in jail, but it may punish you in financial ways.

    Pulling funding and/or fining you. Regulations, etc. I think of those wedding cake people that were sued into the poor house because they wouldn’t make some gay persons wedding cake. Basically the government saying you aren’t going to have a good job and/or be able to run a profitable business if we don’t like what you said, even if we don’t throw you in jail.

    3) Individuals and companies who respond to the threat of #2 by preemptively firing someone. In this case the government didn’t actually *DO* anything, but the known threat of action was enough to make private actors act on their behalf.

    4) Private individuals who try to destroy peoples lives just because they don’t like what they said. Think the Mozilla CEO that got fired. Or any SJW Twitter crusade ever.

    All of these fall in the realm of free speech. The fourth may not be a matter of public policy, but its a matter of public ethics. It’s simply wrong to do, and I don’t see how you can avoid ethically criticizing people who do this.

  26. The editor of The Hooded Utilitarian, Noah Berlatsky, who shut the comments down on the Jacob Canfield piece when it “blew up”, has a comment on an unrelated post, the content of which indicates to me that he understands that Canfield didn’t comprehend the French context of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons, and includes a link to a piece that provides such context.

  27. It’s simply wrong to do, and I don’t see how you can avoid ethically criticizing people who do this.

    i made it pretty clear on my twitter feed via who i retweeted that i thought the way eich was purged was atrocious.

    there are plenty of things i could talk about and address. just because i use my finite time to talk about a subset doesn’t imply that i “avoid” something. it just isn’t as high on the stack of my personal interests/competencies. most of the commenters who banned/deleted simply elide and confound any differences between the different categories you enumerated. i think that’s bullshit. (there’s also a tendency to bastardize steve sailer’s views and pass them off as their own, which annoys me since i’ve been reading steve for nearly 15 years now and i’m familiar with the original).

    i had to deal with a serious medical emergency in my family this week. i hope you don’t think i’m avoiding the substance of your comments, as i have to deal with a lot of bureaucratic stuff relating to that right now at 12 AM in the morning…

    • Replies: @Sandgroper
    @Razib Khan

    Hoping everything is resolved, or at least stabilised.

    I'm just about done with medical stuff, myself, but if I just slip away, the people I love most will never forgive me, and I can't go that way.

    , @Immigrant from former USSR
    @Razib Khan

    "i had to deal with a serious medical emergency in my family this week."
    Traditional concerned gratuitous comment.

  28. I do find it hilarious that most of the American news networks voiced their support for the victims yet refused to reprint their work. The AP says as a policy they don’t push provocative photos, yet they’ve put up the WBC “God Hates Fags” photos on their articles. The New York Times was a disappointment, though not surprising since they were also the newspaper that turned down the Edward Snowden story just as cowardly as they did here.

    Clearly what they mean by not being provocative is “not doing stuff that offends the people that actually will kill us”. Everybody else they can pretend to be edgy about criticizing.

  29. Razib, you noted in your post on blasphemy that taboos against blasphemy and any speech that offends the beliefs and values of the community are clearly natural and universal. The modern West is really unusual in tolerating offensive speech to the extent that it does, so that if we value freedom of speech, we must be constantly vigilant against any lapse back into nature, e.g. attempts by the government to infringe on our right to free speech.

    However, for the same reasons we must also expect there to be social sanctions against unpopular opinions no matter what time or place we live in. I think one can make a strong case that political correctness has largely usurped blasphemy in this role, and I see the social sanctions against the offenders against PC as just the reality we need to deal with. Being publicly shamed or being fired may be hard to deal with personally, but they just aren’t on the same level as being jailed or executed for one’s beliefs. We should be grateful that, regardless of how unpopular or politically incorrect our opinions, our opponents are unable to use the state’s power against us.

    That being said, asdf does make a reasonable case that state power is already being used against the un-PC in disturbing ways in the West, though perhaps not in the US. At least outside the US, hate speech laws represent unambiguous state-imposed infringements on freedom of speech. Within the US, anti-discrimination lawsuits almost amount to the same thing, e.g. suing a business for not serving a gay couple, though I see that problem as less about freedom of speech than about freedom of the market, which as a (mostly) libertarian person is an important issue to me, but not on the same level as my commitment to democracy and freedom of expression.

  30. Hope emergency is over and all are well.

  31. @Razib Khan
    It’s simply wrong to do, and I don’t see how you can avoid ethically criticizing people who do this.

    i made it pretty clear on my twitter feed via who i retweeted that i thought the way eich was purged was atrocious.

    there are plenty of things i could talk about and address. just because i use my finite time to talk about a subset doesn't imply that i "avoid" something. it just isn't as high on the stack of my personal interests/competencies. most of the commenters who banned/deleted simply elide and confound any differences between the different categories you enumerated. i think that's bullshit. (there's also a tendency to bastardize steve sailer's views and pass them off as their own, which annoys me since i've been reading steve for nearly 15 years now and i'm familiar with the original).

    i had to deal with a serious medical emergency in my family this week. i hope you don't think i'm avoiding the substance of your comments, as i have to deal with a lot of bureaucratic stuff relating to that right now at 12 AM in the morning...

    Replies: @Sandgroper, @Immigrant from former USSR

    Hoping everything is resolved, or at least stabilised.

    I’m just about done with medical stuff, myself, but if I just slip away, the people I love most will never forgive me, and I can’t go that way.

  32. This was a very thought provoking thread! Ultimately, I feel the two probably aren’t analogous even on a basic level because we live so much better so obviously they don’t really achieve the same thing. I could be wrong but that’s my feeling right now as I stare at my 65″ 4k TV if you can catch my drift. I don’t feel the West’s version of blaspheme is quite as effective at controlling people’s actual behavior as much as just the face they put on in public. if the results were truly equivalent on a basic level and there wouldn’t be a need for, say, Arab governments to do what they do (public hanging, lashing, etc.) there’s a reason why my Iranian student helpers say they will never go back to Iran even to visit.
    Still just thinking about this a lot though….

  33. Ugh…I had a feeling from your OP there was some health issue with the family. We’ve had a few scares with the kids over the years ourselves (spent three nights in the hospital last year). Hope everything is alright.

    24 –

    As I said in another thread, there is, in terms of how actual societies operate, functionally no clear dividing line between religion, law, manners, and custom. They all bleed into one another, because they are all part of learning how to socialized as a member of your culture. And we must be socialized as something. As an adult, if you are intelligent and self-reflective, you can reflect upon (and check) your own priors, but it’s impossible to raise a child to adulthood without instilling them. Unless we are somewhere on the autistic spectrum, we have an unconscious ability to pick up on what other people perceive to be the right social behavior and modify our own behavior accordingly after all.

    I think a lot of the deformation of modern society comes down to the erosion of common priors, honestly. Moral priors are very important if you want to have a pluralistic democratic political debate. As an example, consider health care. You can have a debate about what the best means to provision adequate health care to the public is, as long as both sides have the prior that provision of health care is a good thing. But if one side approaches the question from the prior that if you cannot afford health care, you should not be provided it, there is really nothing worth debating.

    To a great extent, I don’t think it matters if many of these priors are right or wrong. I’m not a theist, after all, and I don’t believe that concepts such as “justice” have absolute meanings, only relative ones insofar as the general public is comfortable under the rule of the state and doesn’t have the subjective feeling of oppression. But what I see now, at least in the U.S. context, is a great “tearing apart” where people (often internet mediated) rarely interact with anyone who differs substantially with them in terms of ideology. To my mind, the greatest sin of “political correctness” is it totally ineffective at what it claims to be – an effort to change society at large – and instead mostly polices the speech of those who would be most inclined to support it anyway.

    • Replies: @jtgw
    @Karl Zimmerman

    Interesting take. Personally, as one who is anti-PC, I'm pretty glad that PC is as ineffective as it is, and I wouldn't want to live in a society where it really was effective at transforming society along its dictates. And I don't agree that it is actually ineffective: witness the many discussions on the alternative left and right on how PC has come to dominate mainstream political discourse across the spectrum, e.g. left-wing environmentalists and right-wing conservatives who point out the ill effects of immigration on the environment or on society are marginalized and demonized.

    And as to priors, you note that it is important both to instill them in children, but also for adults to be able to check them in adulthood. The latter is not possible in an un-free society, which is the kind of society we'd get if PC had its way, but also the kind of society we'd get if the neoreactionaries had their way and imposed old-style absolutist monarchy. I'm happy living in a plain old liberal democracy where different opinions on how society should be organized can be freely debated, even at the cost of social cohesion and solidarity.

  34. @Karl Zimmerman
    Ugh...I had a feeling from your OP there was some health issue with the family. We've had a few scares with the kids over the years ourselves (spent three nights in the hospital last year). Hope everything is alright.

    24 -

    As I said in another thread, there is, in terms of how actual societies operate, functionally no clear dividing line between religion, law, manners, and custom. They all bleed into one another, because they are all part of learning how to socialized as a member of your culture. And we must be socialized as something. As an adult, if you are intelligent and self-reflective, you can reflect upon (and check) your own priors, but it's impossible to raise a child to adulthood without instilling them. Unless we are somewhere on the autistic spectrum, we have an unconscious ability to pick up on what other people perceive to be the right social behavior and modify our own behavior accordingly after all.

    I think a lot of the deformation of modern society comes down to the erosion of common priors, honestly. Moral priors are very important if you want to have a pluralistic democratic political debate. As an example, consider health care. You can have a debate about what the best means to provision adequate health care to the public is, as long as both sides have the prior that provision of health care is a good thing. But if one side approaches the question from the prior that if you cannot afford health care, you should not be provided it, there is really nothing worth debating.

    To a great extent, I don't think it matters if many of these priors are right or wrong. I'm not a theist, after all, and I don't believe that concepts such as "justice" have absolute meanings, only relative ones insofar as the general public is comfortable under the rule of the state and doesn't have the subjective feeling of oppression. But what I see now, at least in the U.S. context, is a great "tearing apart" where people (often internet mediated) rarely interact with anyone who differs substantially with them in terms of ideology. To my mind, the greatest sin of "political correctness" is it totally ineffective at what it claims to be - an effort to change society at large - and instead mostly polices the speech of those who would be most inclined to support it anyway.

    Replies: @jtgw

    Interesting take. Personally, as one who is anti-PC, I’m pretty glad that PC is as ineffective as it is, and I wouldn’t want to live in a society where it really was effective at transforming society along its dictates. And I don’t agree that it is actually ineffective: witness the many discussions on the alternative left and right on how PC has come to dominate mainstream political discourse across the spectrum, e.g. left-wing environmentalists and right-wing conservatives who point out the ill effects of immigration on the environment or on society are marginalized and demonized.

    And as to priors, you note that it is important both to instill them in children, but also for adults to be able to check them in adulthood. The latter is not possible in an un-free society, which is the kind of society we’d get if PC had its way, but also the kind of society we’d get if the neoreactionaries had their way and imposed old-style absolutist monarchy. I’m happy living in a plain old liberal democracy where different opinions on how society should be organized can be freely debated, even at the cost of social cohesion and solidarity.

  35. Ideology and religion are very similar in that they require its followers unquestinable belief and disregard any fact or truth contradicting their beliefs.

    Unfortunately, most people are this earth are creatures of ideology or religion.

    Blind followers are the majority.

    • Replies: @jtgw
    @AG

    This was also my point. Most people are conformists by nature and will use various tools of ostracism at their disposal to suppress non-conformist opinions. That is just how humans are and those of us who are contrarian by nature need to learn to deal with it. What is important to me is that the tools of ostracism should never involve violence, either by the state or by the private individual or corporation. So, for example, I think Brendan Eich was treated badly, but when you get down to it he did not have an inalienable right to be the CEO of Mozilla, and it muddies the issue when people bring him up as an example of the suppression of free speech. Terrorists murdering the editors of Charlie Hebdo because they offended their beliefs, on the other hand, was a clear case of an attack on free speech.

    Replies: @AG, @Pithlord, @Wilkey

  36. @AG
    Ideology and religion are very similar in that they require its followers unquestinable belief and disregard any fact or truth contradicting their beliefs.

    Unfortunately, most people are this earth are creatures of ideology or religion.

    Blind followers are the majority.

    Replies: @jtgw

    This was also my point. Most people are conformists by nature and will use various tools of ostracism at their disposal to suppress non-conformist opinions. That is just how humans are and those of us who are contrarian by nature need to learn to deal with it. What is important to me is that the tools of ostracism should never involve violence, either by the state or by the private individual or corporation. So, for example, I think Brendan Eich was treated badly, but when you get down to it he did not have an inalienable right to be the CEO of Mozilla, and it muddies the issue when people bring him up as an example of the suppression of free speech. Terrorists murdering the editors of Charlie Hebdo because they offended their beliefs, on the other hand, was a clear case of an attack on free speech.

    • Replies: @AG
    @jtgw

    Thank you for agreeing with me.

    But "clear case of an attack on free speech" in my count is esccalated reaction (killing) to an offensieve action (insult under name of free speech). In my last comment, such cycle will not end untill both sides perish.

    “There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.”

    William Shakespeare quote.

    Obviously some people believe "freedom of speech (or insult)" is unquestionable good thing, then freedom of speech itself is form of ideology.

    I am for freedom of preseenting fact (which carry no moral judgement). Presenting heliocentrism is fact. Opinions are not fact. Presenting life expectancy is fact. Judging quality of life is opinion.

    , @Pithlord
    @jtgw

    Your approach is fine as a matter of constitutional law. But the problem is that most people have to work for a living, so if it is open season on getting people fired when they have controversial views, most people will shut up (or vent anonymously/pseudonymously on the Internet). I guess this is inevitable to some extent, but it makes sense to aspire to a *culture* of leaving eccentrics alone. Mill recognized that you could easily have an America that adheres scrupulously to an absolutist version of the First Amendment, but in which almost everyone is afraid to say publicly what they actually think. Victorian England could be a bit like that.

    Replies: @jtgw

    , @Wilkey
    @jtgw

    "So, for example, I think Brendan Eich was treated badly, but when you get down to it he did not have an inalienable right to be the CEO of Mozilla, and it muddies the issue when people bring him up as an example of the suppression of free speech."

    True enough. But take these two arguments by the gay rights crowd:

    1) People have the right to be gay because we should "live and let live."

    2) Companies should not be able to fire people because of their sexual orientation.

    After the Brendan Eich firing, or the Marc Shaiman witch hunt against that Sacramento theater director, those two arguments don't seem so sincere anymore, do they?

    Replies: @jtgw

  37. While I’m familiar with the notion of civic (or civil) religion, I had to look up the notion of “Political Religion.” I sort of agree that the Wikipedia article, at least, is incoherent, although what it says does seem to distinguish it from the two civic religions here in the U.S. – Americanism (the subject of the Beliah paper) and Progress. The Social Justice Warrior types belong to one of the denominations of Progress, at least as far as I can see.

  38. @jtgw
    @AG

    This was also my point. Most people are conformists by nature and will use various tools of ostracism at their disposal to suppress non-conformist opinions. That is just how humans are and those of us who are contrarian by nature need to learn to deal with it. What is important to me is that the tools of ostracism should never involve violence, either by the state or by the private individual or corporation. So, for example, I think Brendan Eich was treated badly, but when you get down to it he did not have an inalienable right to be the CEO of Mozilla, and it muddies the issue when people bring him up as an example of the suppression of free speech. Terrorists murdering the editors of Charlie Hebdo because they offended their beliefs, on the other hand, was a clear case of an attack on free speech.

    Replies: @AG, @Pithlord, @Wilkey

    Thank you for agreeing with me.

    But “clear case of an attack on free speech” in my count is esccalated reaction (killing) to an offensieve action (insult under name of free speech). In my last comment, such cycle will not end untill both sides perish.

    “There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.”

    William Shakespeare quote.

    Obviously some people believe “freedom of speech (or insult)” is unquestionable good thing, then freedom of speech itself is form of ideology.

    I am for freedom of preseenting fact (which carry no moral judgement). Presenting heliocentrism is fact. Opinions are not fact. Presenting life expectancy is fact. Judging quality of life is opinion.

  39. @jtgw
    @AG

    This was also my point. Most people are conformists by nature and will use various tools of ostracism at their disposal to suppress non-conformist opinions. That is just how humans are and those of us who are contrarian by nature need to learn to deal with it. What is important to me is that the tools of ostracism should never involve violence, either by the state or by the private individual or corporation. So, for example, I think Brendan Eich was treated badly, but when you get down to it he did not have an inalienable right to be the CEO of Mozilla, and it muddies the issue when people bring him up as an example of the suppression of free speech. Terrorists murdering the editors of Charlie Hebdo because they offended their beliefs, on the other hand, was a clear case of an attack on free speech.

    Replies: @AG, @Pithlord, @Wilkey

    Your approach is fine as a matter of constitutional law. But the problem is that most people have to work for a living, so if it is open season on getting people fired when they have controversial views, most people will shut up (or vent anonymously/pseudonymously on the Internet). I guess this is inevitable to some extent, but it makes sense to aspire to a *culture* of leaving eccentrics alone. Mill recognized that you could easily have an America that adheres scrupulously to an absolutist version of the First Amendment, but in which almost everyone is afraid to say publicly what they actually think. Victorian England could be a bit like that.

    • Replies: @jtgw
    @Pithlord

    I completely agree about aspiring to a culture of toleration. To some extent I'm even on board with the PC project to the extent that it is about tolerating the existence of e.g. sexual minorities. The problem is that according to PC, such tolerance must be accompanied by a corresponding intolerance towards those who disapprove of sexually deviant behavior. But I am not going to match PC intolerance with my own intolerance. I'm not going to say that private companies can't fire people for expressing views that the company's shareholders feel are incompatible with the company's mission or self-image. Otherwise, what happened to freedom of association? I don't know if that's what you were saying, but this is a concern I have when people try to equate social pressure with state-sanctioned oppression.

    Replies: @asdf

  40. jtkw –

    Remember that self-policing of speech in political correctness is a means, not an end. The (purported) end goal is to eliminate racism, sexism, homophobia, and all forms of subjugation of the subaltern. Using alteration of speech to achieve this, however, is totally unworkable because:

    1. New “correct” terms take on pejorative meanings over time. Mentally retarded was a clinical term which replaced idiot/imbecile/moron, but by the 1980s had become a pejorative, and thus it was believed yet another family of terms needed to replace it. Similarly, homosexual (in reference to people) has begun to be seen as offensive in some quarters over the last decade.

    2. Throughout human cultures, it is nigh universal to have different behavior in the public and private sphere. This isn’t surprising, because what we say in the public sphere is a matter of politics – where concerns of “groupness” are most strong. In contrast, how we act is much more guided by our own self-interest – or rather what we perceive our self interest to be. Hence the numerous white “liberals” who would never say a bad word about black people, but also would never send their kids to a school with more than 10% black enrollment.

    Regardless, if your goal is to change society, and not merely to alter tribal signifiers, you need to change the way people act, not just the way people talk. Shutting down a discussion by claiming someone is “endorsing rape culture” probably does very little to stop rape – in all likelihood no one in the room is a potential rapist, and if they were, they would probably be a sociopath who wouldn’t care anyway. All the tweets in the world about white privilege won’t stop some cops from using disproportionate force against black people – they probably aren’t on twitter, and wouldn’t give a damn what you say anyway.

    If you consider yourself a social justice warrior, and you want to effect actual social change, there’s only four real ways to achieve it. One is to go the electoral route – either convince elected officials directly you are right, or convince a majority of voters of the justness of your campaign. The second is to form a radical social movement which engages in activities which genuinely frighten the elite enough they throw a bone of reformism your way (see Nixon’s support of the EPA, Clean Air Act, OSHA, etc). Within the U.S. system, there is also the possibility of working through the courts – but because judges are not entirely impartial arbiters, this will probably be impossible without the first two laying the groundwork. Finally, you can organize for a revolution. Everything else is just bullshit.

  41. good comments so far. sorry can’t participate more thoroughly. let’s keep the comments high quality.

    (things are looking up in terms my life getting back to normal just so people don’t think it’s dire)

  42. “3) Individuals and companies who respond to the threat of #2 by preemptively firing someone. In this case the government didn’t actually *DO* anything, but the known threat of action was enough to make private actors act on their behalf.

    4) Private individuals who try to destroy peoples lives just because they don’t like what they said. Think the Mozilla CEO that got fired. Or any SJW Twitter crusade ever.”

    3 could be also (and perhaps is even more common) by the threat of #4.

    However, I think we have an interesting paradox:

    – usually is the right-wing (or at least the libertarian right-wing) who says that, if there is not state or physical coercion, you are free, and some libertarians and conservatives are enthusiastic about the idea of a culturally homogeneous society enforced by private discrimination (think Hans Herman Hoppe, for example – who, perhaps ironically, was himself discriminated…)

    – in contrast, it is the left-wing who says that, even if you are formally “free”, you could be oppressed by social rules and prejudices (by “racism”, “patriarchy”, “homophobia”, etc, etc.) and by the threat of social ostracism against the deviants (being the difficulty in finding a job an important part of that)

    The thing that I think is a paradox is that, in this discussions about “political correction”, sometimes we see an inversion of positions, with people from “the right” making the point traditionally associated to “the left”.

    • Replies: @jtgw
    @Miguel Madeira

    I've been noticing the same thing. When the Matt Taylor Shirtgate blew up, I was initially sympathetic towards his defenders, but it started to dawn on me that, from a libertarian perspective, I couldn't object to anything done by either party. This was not a true free speech issue. He had a right to wear that shirt, but his critics had a right to criticize him for offending their sensibilities, and he had a corresponding right to apologize for offending them. I'm not aware that he was threatened with the sack unless he apologized, let alone threatened with fines or jailtime. I can accept it as an example of the kind of hysteria that grips online feminism, but when you get down to it he was completely free to ignore them or to respond negatively, if he so chose. That he chose to respond with an apology was completely within his rights.

    For opponents of the domination of PC in our culture, what exactly is the remedy being proposed? If we want to fight it with arguments, I'm completely on board, but that's all we have at our disposal if we are not to abandon the very principles of free speech that we are fighting for. We shouldn't start demanding special legal protections for our anti-PC views.

    Replies: @Miguel Madeira

  43. Razib,

    I just want to say thanks for all the book recommendations. I just picked up In Gods We Trust due to you. Your Goodreads account is a great resource when I just want to grab a heady book.

    Cheers man

  44. @Razib Khan
    It’s simply wrong to do, and I don’t see how you can avoid ethically criticizing people who do this.

    i made it pretty clear on my twitter feed via who i retweeted that i thought the way eich was purged was atrocious.

    there are plenty of things i could talk about and address. just because i use my finite time to talk about a subset doesn't imply that i "avoid" something. it just isn't as high on the stack of my personal interests/competencies. most of the commenters who banned/deleted simply elide and confound any differences between the different categories you enumerated. i think that's bullshit. (there's also a tendency to bastardize steve sailer's views and pass them off as their own, which annoys me since i've been reading steve for nearly 15 years now and i'm familiar with the original).

    i had to deal with a serious medical emergency in my family this week. i hope you don't think i'm avoiding the substance of your comments, as i have to deal with a lot of bureaucratic stuff relating to that right now at 12 AM in the morning...

    Replies: @Sandgroper, @Immigrant from former USSR

    “i had to deal with a serious medical emergency in my family this week.”
    Traditional concerned gratuitous comment.

  45. Conor Friedersdorf has an article at The Atlantic with emails from law students, lawyers, and law professors about trigger warnings in law school. Most of the letters from the lawyers and professors aren’t on board with trigger warnings and “the culture of fragility”. However, many of the students’ comments seem quite influenced by SJW and progressive memes. E.g., part of a letter from an NYU law student:

    In my experience, I have found that student objections over triggers and insensitivity are nearly always reasonable, and speak less to individual feelings than to a clear-headed objection to professors’ offensive and unreasonable behavior. I think what’s most important, though, is that students are objecting less to isolated events or issues than to deep-seated biases in the law, and in legal education, and these ‘trigger’ moments are symptoms of a well-known problem

    [MORE]
    Also, from a student at Bekeley:

    Minority and female students already face emotionally charged and sometimes downright antagonistic situations in the classroom all the time. They don’t need to be “taught” how to think well in emotional situations on some 1L exam. Believe me: If you make it to a competitive law school and you’re not a wealthy white male, you’re already a pro at holding back emotions and thinking analytically

  46. @jtgw
    @AG

    This was also my point. Most people are conformists by nature and will use various tools of ostracism at their disposal to suppress non-conformist opinions. That is just how humans are and those of us who are contrarian by nature need to learn to deal with it. What is important to me is that the tools of ostracism should never involve violence, either by the state or by the private individual or corporation. So, for example, I think Brendan Eich was treated badly, but when you get down to it he did not have an inalienable right to be the CEO of Mozilla, and it muddies the issue when people bring him up as an example of the suppression of free speech. Terrorists murdering the editors of Charlie Hebdo because they offended their beliefs, on the other hand, was a clear case of an attack on free speech.

    Replies: @AG, @Pithlord, @Wilkey

    “So, for example, I think Brendan Eich was treated badly, but when you get down to it he did not have an inalienable right to be the CEO of Mozilla, and it muddies the issue when people bring him up as an example of the suppression of free speech.”

    True enough. But take these two arguments by the gay rights crowd:

    1) People have the right to be gay because we should “live and let live.”

    2) Companies should not be able to fire people because of their sexual orientation.

    After the Brendan Eich firing, or the Marc Shaiman witch hunt against that Sacramento theater director, those two arguments don’t seem so sincere anymore, do they?

    • Replies: @jtgw
    @Wilkey

    Well, I am a mostly doctrinaire libertarian, and I believe companies have a right to fire for any reason, including sexual orientation and possibly even gender or race. It strikes me that any company that dismisses a competent employee for something that has no impact on the quality of performance is only harming itself and I'm confident that the freedom to fire for those kinds of reasons will result in very few actual instances of such firings. But I agree that, if you're OK with laws against firing on the basis of sexual orientation or gender, it stands to reason there should be laws against firing someone for expressing their views. But this takes us down a road of ever-increasing government interference in the market that deeply unsettles me. I feel much safer arguing from a position of maximizing personal freedom, including freedom of association.

  47. @Curious Canadian
    Was always curious: what is the deal with Canadian Indians? The data I've seen says they score higher on IQ than black americans, and yet having dealt with them and blacks a lot I find it really hard to believe. Also: why are Canada's Natives such a huge social problem and not as much in USA, or perhaps central & south America? You know how La Griffe de Lion has the Fundamental Constant of Sociology (1 SD)? IN Canada it's 8, as in Indians are 8 times more likely to murder/rape/be in jail.

    I do a lot of reading on genetics but I can't find much on Canadian Indians.

    Replies: @omarali50

    I am not convinced that genetics explains much of these differences in criminality. Aggregate criminal behavior is mostly a cultural issue. Even if a given population has a lower average IQ, if they are socialized successfully (using varying combinations of carrots and sticks…in some but not all cases, more stick than carrot) they can have very low rates of criminality. Among the cultural memes that seem to matter are whether we are being given the constant lesson that our current status in society is a crime commited by the rest of society, which explains ALL of our shortcomings, and for which we have the right to get back at everyone else; note that this involves no judgment on whether it IS the fault of the rest of society. It may well be, but if that is not what we are being taught by sympathetic sections of the dominant elite, we may not pick the victim-liberationwarrior theme. Culture matters.
    This is more or less anecdotal and/or subjective impression in my case. Better read people may have specific examples and data to back this up (or to correct my misconceptions)

    • Replies: @omarali50
    @omarali50

    Sorry. The above comment seems to imply that the victim narative is the most important cultural meme driving everyday criminality. I should have edited my comment while I had time.
    I think culture matters. But things like intact family and community matter much more than whether White people are around to teach me about my status as heroic victim. But I do think the victim piece is a part of it, once family breakdown and community decay have set the ball rolling.

    , @CupOfCanada
    @omarali50

    I think you're more or less correct on culture being the biggest factor Omar. IMHO a big factor in Canada has been the government's policies towards indigenous people, which seems much more paternalistic and prone to creating dependency than a lot of other countries. The general thrust was "we'll give you food and clothing if you just stay on this parcel of marginal land." Even today there are no property rights on First Nations reserves - all the land is owned by the Crown and held in trust for use of that First Nation. Which effectively means if you repaint your house or reroof it, that house can be taken away from you at any point, since it wasn't really your house to begin with. Not really a great environment.

    Then there's geography. From what I understand, there are HUGE disparities from First Nation to First Nations in terms of quality of life outcomes, and one of the biggest factors is how connected the reserve is to the transportation network. If the reserve is connected to the highway network, outcomes aren't so bad. If the reserve isn't connected to the highway network, but has access to the sea or another major waterway, things are a bit worse. If the reserve has neither road nor sea access, but has access by ice road in winter, things are worse still. If the reserve doesn't even have access by ice road, the situation is absolutely horrific. I don't think it should surprise anyone that if you're living somewhere that even a jar of peanut butter has to be flown in on some float plane, living conditions aren't going to be great.

    On top of that, there was the residential schools system, where the government basically rounded up aboriginal children and sent them to boarding schools that were run by pedophiles and where they would be beaten for doing anything even resembling their original culture. Unsurprisingly, if your parents were abused, your home situation may not be all that great either.

    On top of that, First Nations reserves are the only part of Canada where the federal government administers health care and primary/secondary education; in all other cases it is funded provincially. Unsurprisingly, the government chronically underfunds First Nations education, to the tune of 50 cents on the dollar compared to broader society.

    So yah, lots of cultural/political explanations before looking for anything genetic.

    Replies: @Curious Canadian

  48. @omarali50
    @Curious Canadian

    I am not convinced that genetics explains much of these differences in criminality. Aggregate criminal behavior is mostly a cultural issue. Even if a given population has a lower average IQ, if they are socialized successfully (using varying combinations of carrots and sticks...in some but not all cases, more stick than carrot) they can have very low rates of criminality. Among the cultural memes that seem to matter are whether we are being given the constant lesson that our current status in society is a crime commited by the rest of society, which explains ALL of our shortcomings, and for which we have the right to get back at everyone else; note that this involves no judgment on whether it IS the fault of the rest of society. It may well be, but if that is not what we are being taught by sympathetic sections of the dominant elite, we may not pick the victim-liberationwarrior theme. Culture matters.
    This is more or less anecdotal and/or subjective impression in my case. Better read people may have specific examples and data to back this up (or to correct my misconceptions)

    Replies: @omarali50, @CupOfCanada

    Sorry. The above comment seems to imply that the victim narative is the most important cultural meme driving everyday criminality. I should have edited my comment while I had time.
    I think culture matters. But things like intact family and community matter much more than whether White people are around to teach me about my status as heroic victim. But I do think the victim piece is a part of it, once family breakdown and community decay have set the ball rolling.

  49. @Razib Khan
    Why the fuck do you care what a leftist thinks? You’re a conservative – do you lose your shit if some reactionary over at NRO tells you that Only True Conservatives oppose something? I really doubt it.

    no one keeps sharing NRO on my facebook feed.

    Replies: @Rafe Kelley

    There in lies the rub, as someone who operates in similar socially liberal mileiu I find myself driven crazy by the constant stream of the most extreme liberal craziness on my facebook feed.

    I often wonder if other people are tied into networks that are as crazy but on the right, perhaps if I had been raised in christian family in oklahoma and worked in local business, I would be outraged all the time about stupid creationists, appeals to biblical authority, and austrian economic rants. Given my west coast location, career and education those are not the stupid pieties I find myself exposed to all the time.

    I understand it just a result of normal cognitive biases but it drives me crazy how oblivious the average liberal I know is to just how crazy the extremists are and how much their own thinking is effected by ideas coming out of critical theory, post structuralism and third wave feminism. When you point out the fundamental ideas people people on the left deride them but they still end up operational thinking about gender as being entirely social constructed, or being shocked when someone points out that rape as an act of power is incoherent.

  50. Jailing and killing someone for their speech seem to me to be on the same continuum.

    Neither is the same as censoring comments on your own blog, or a newspaper moderating comments even if they are doing it for nefarious reasons, to create a false consensus.

  51. “If you consider yourself a social justice warrior, and you want to effect actual social change, there’s only four real ways to achieve it. One is to go the electoral route (…). The second is to form a radical social movement which engages in activities which genuinely frighten the elite enough they throw a bone of reformism your way (…). Within the U.S. system, there is also the possibility of working through the courts – but because judges are not entirely impartial arbiters, this will probably be impossible without the first two laying the groundwork. Finally, you can organize for a revolution.”

    I suspect that the main element of many social changes is a change in culture, more than the change in laws (look to the “woman’s liberation”, who was almost all about moral norms, instead of laws; or even the gay marriage, who was win in culture before wining in politics – http://reason.com/archives/2011/06/27/all-in-the-gay-family)

  52. @Pithlord
    @jtgw

    Your approach is fine as a matter of constitutional law. But the problem is that most people have to work for a living, so if it is open season on getting people fired when they have controversial views, most people will shut up (or vent anonymously/pseudonymously on the Internet). I guess this is inevitable to some extent, but it makes sense to aspire to a *culture* of leaving eccentrics alone. Mill recognized that you could easily have an America that adheres scrupulously to an absolutist version of the First Amendment, but in which almost everyone is afraid to say publicly what they actually think. Victorian England could be a bit like that.

    Replies: @jtgw

    I completely agree about aspiring to a culture of toleration. To some extent I’m even on board with the PC project to the extent that it is about tolerating the existence of e.g. sexual minorities. The problem is that according to PC, such tolerance must be accompanied by a corresponding intolerance towards those who disapprove of sexually deviant behavior. But I am not going to match PC intolerance with my own intolerance. I’m not going to say that private companies can’t fire people for expressing views that the company’s shareholders feel are incompatible with the company’s mission or self-image. Otherwise, what happened to freedom of association? I don’t know if that’s what you were saying, but this is a concern I have when people try to equate social pressure with state-sanctioned oppression.

    • Replies: @asdf
    @jtgw

    Since the 1960s there is no freedom of association. People can't refuse to make a wedding cake for a gay couple if they don't want to. You will give into all demands of protected classes or have your life ruined, period.

    If you can't fire someone for being pro-gay, then you shouldn't be able to fire someone for being anti-gay. But we all know this is a one way street. One view is protected by the government, and other prosecuted. Freedom of association got thrown out the window.

    The problem is, once you lose the message war in the private space, its inevitable that you'll lose the message war in the public space. This whole commitment to free speech thing is based on cultural and social assumptions that most people who believe in PC don't hold. Once they have enough power you can't expect them not to use it any way they can, including the government.

    Seperation between public and private spheres aren't the norm for human civilization. If you entire plan for fighting PC lies in erecting a barrier between the two that's a pretty faulty strategy. Once the lynch mob is formed I doubt they are going to care about free speech, and to the extent they give it lip service they will rationalize around it in practice.

    It's like a person sitting in a castle as large hostile armies gather around. They think the walls will keep them safe even as their enemies gather around them. The walls of free speech are fragile, they can't hold back the hordes if they get to strong.

    Replies: @Jtgw, @Miguel Madeira

  53. @Miguel Madeira
    "3) Individuals and companies who respond to the threat of #2 by preemptively firing someone. In this case the government didn’t actually *DO* anything, but the known threat of action was enough to make private actors act on their behalf.

    4) Private individuals who try to destroy peoples lives just because they don’t like what they said. Think the Mozilla CEO that got fired. Or any SJW Twitter crusade ever."

    3 could be also (and perhaps is even more common) by the threat of #4.

    However, I think we have an interesting paradox:

    - usually is the right-wing (or at least the libertarian right-wing) who says that, if there is not state or physical coercion, you are free, and some libertarians and conservatives are enthusiastic about the idea of a culturally homogeneous society enforced by private discrimination (think Hans Herman Hoppe, for example - who, perhaps ironically, was himself discriminated...)

    - in contrast, it is the left-wing who says that, even if you are formally "free", you could be oppressed by social rules and prejudices (by "racism", "patriarchy", "homophobia", etc, etc.) and by the threat of social ostracism against the deviants (being the difficulty in finding a job an important part of that)

    The thing that I think is a paradox is that, in this discussions about "political correction", sometimes we see an inversion of positions, with people from "the right" making the point traditionally associated to "the left".

    Replies: @jtgw

    I’ve been noticing the same thing. When the Matt Taylor Shirtgate blew up, I was initially sympathetic towards his defenders, but it started to dawn on me that, from a libertarian perspective, I couldn’t object to anything done by either party. This was not a true free speech issue. He had a right to wear that shirt, but his critics had a right to criticize him for offending their sensibilities, and he had a corresponding right to apologize for offending them. I’m not aware that he was threatened with the sack unless he apologized, let alone threatened with fines or jailtime. I can accept it as an example of the kind of hysteria that grips online feminism, but when you get down to it he was completely free to ignore them or to respond negatively, if he so chose. That he chose to respond with an apology was completely within his rights.

    For opponents of the domination of PC in our culture, what exactly is the remedy being proposed? If we want to fight it with arguments, I’m completely on board, but that’s all we have at our disposal if we are not to abandon the very principles of free speech that we are fighting for. We shouldn’t start demanding special legal protections for our anti-PC views.

    • Replies: @Miguel Madeira
    @jtgw

    This remember me the thing about "thin vs. thick libertarianism" - the libertarians who think that libertarianism only requires opposition to the initiation of force versus the libertarians who think that libertarianism requires a set of moral values beyond simply the non-initiation of force. The self-proclaimed "thick libertarians" are from the cultural left, saying that libertarians should be also against racism, homophobia, etc., (fighting it by non-statist ways, not by laws), but a similar argument can be made against excessive PC.

  54. @Wilkey
    @jtgw

    "So, for example, I think Brendan Eich was treated badly, but when you get down to it he did not have an inalienable right to be the CEO of Mozilla, and it muddies the issue when people bring him up as an example of the suppression of free speech."

    True enough. But take these two arguments by the gay rights crowd:

    1) People have the right to be gay because we should "live and let live."

    2) Companies should not be able to fire people because of their sexual orientation.

    After the Brendan Eich firing, or the Marc Shaiman witch hunt against that Sacramento theater director, those two arguments don't seem so sincere anymore, do they?

    Replies: @jtgw

    Well, I am a mostly doctrinaire libertarian, and I believe companies have a right to fire for any reason, including sexual orientation and possibly even gender or race. It strikes me that any company that dismisses a competent employee for something that has no impact on the quality of performance is only harming itself and I’m confident that the freedom to fire for those kinds of reasons will result in very few actual instances of such firings. But I agree that, if you’re OK with laws against firing on the basis of sexual orientation or gender, it stands to reason there should be laws against firing someone for expressing their views. But this takes us down a road of ever-increasing government interference in the market that deeply unsettles me. I feel much safer arguing from a position of maximizing personal freedom, including freedom of association.

  55. I’ve read that Coyotes and Wolves have mixed in the U.S. There have been many more coyote sightings in the NY suburbs recently and I’m wondering if it’s fair to assume that this is because hybrid animals are more aggressive, or is it just the fact that the booming deer population is leading to more “pure” or “mixed” coyotes to be able to survive in general.

    Is there any data on what % wolf admixture these animals have?

  56. @omarali50
    @Curious Canadian

    I am not convinced that genetics explains much of these differences in criminality. Aggregate criminal behavior is mostly a cultural issue. Even if a given population has a lower average IQ, if they are socialized successfully (using varying combinations of carrots and sticks...in some but not all cases, more stick than carrot) they can have very low rates of criminality. Among the cultural memes that seem to matter are whether we are being given the constant lesson that our current status in society is a crime commited by the rest of society, which explains ALL of our shortcomings, and for which we have the right to get back at everyone else; note that this involves no judgment on whether it IS the fault of the rest of society. It may well be, but if that is not what we are being taught by sympathetic sections of the dominant elite, we may not pick the victim-liberationwarrior theme. Culture matters.
    This is more or less anecdotal and/or subjective impression in my case. Better read people may have specific examples and data to back this up (or to correct my misconceptions)

    Replies: @omarali50, @CupOfCanada

    I think you’re more or less correct on culture being the biggest factor Omar. IMHO a big factor in Canada has been the government’s policies towards indigenous people, which seems much more paternalistic and prone to creating dependency than a lot of other countries. The general thrust was “we’ll give you food and clothing if you just stay on this parcel of marginal land.” Even today there are no property rights on First Nations reserves – all the land is owned by the Crown and held in trust for use of that First Nation. Which effectively means if you repaint your house or reroof it, that house can be taken away from you at any point, since it wasn’t really your house to begin with. Not really a great environment.

    Then there’s geography. From what I understand, there are HUGE disparities from First Nation to First Nations in terms of quality of life outcomes, and one of the biggest factors is how connected the reserve is to the transportation network. If the reserve is connected to the highway network, outcomes aren’t so bad. If the reserve isn’t connected to the highway network, but has access to the sea or another major waterway, things are a bit worse. If the reserve has neither road nor sea access, but has access by ice road in winter, things are worse still. If the reserve doesn’t even have access by ice road, the situation is absolutely horrific. I don’t think it should surprise anyone that if you’re living somewhere that even a jar of peanut butter has to be flown in on some float plane, living conditions aren’t going to be great.

    On top of that, there was the residential schools system, where the government basically rounded up aboriginal children and sent them to boarding schools that were run by pedophiles and where they would be beaten for doing anything even resembling their original culture. Unsurprisingly, if your parents were abused, your home situation may not be all that great either.

    On top of that, First Nations reserves are the only part of Canada where the federal government administers health care and primary/secondary education; in all other cases it is funded provincially. Unsurprisingly, the government chronically underfunds First Nations education, to the tune of 50 cents on the dollar compared to broader society.

    So yah, lots of cultural/political explanations before looking for anything genetic.

    • Replies: @Curious Canadian
    @CupOfCanada

    So, whitey's fault then, and nurture over nature, and genetics aren't terribly relevant here, and some bilge about rez schools that isn't supported by fact (who told you it was like that? the media?).

    Wasn't expecting that response here.

    Every society selects for something - what did theirs select for?

    Replies: @CupOfCanada

  57. Razib – With due respect, I think you may be doing the same offense you accused others of not very long ago, in that you’re attacking people for the positions you imagine them to hold.

    I find the cartoon of Mohammed bent over and naked offensive. I find the cartoon of Jesus sodomizing God offensive. I find the cartoon of a black politician drawn as a monkey offensive. I find the hook nosed caricatures of Muslims and Jews offensive.

    If you don’t find those offensive, that’s fine with me, and anyone is offended by your lack of offense is an asshole in by books. I just don’t think anyone should expect me to find them less offensive just because the people who drew them were killed. It’s tragic and abhorrent that anyone can be killed or even jailed over a cartoon. I am 100% condemning any sort of censorship or violence against these people, but I cannot that “je suis Charlie.” I’m not Charlie because frankly I don’t draw cartoons like that.

  58. #57, i don’t give a shit if you or anyone else finds them offensive. i do find it offensive though if you tell me what is, or isn’t, offensive or against the islamic religion, as the poster above did, as if it matters, and as if you know.

    I find the cartoon of a black politician drawn as a monkey offensive.

    i’m assuming you didn’t go full retard here, and know the anti-racist context for this specific? (with all due respect)

    also, the post i’m linking to has a lot of straight out lies in it. e.g., he claims that the cartoonists were all white. that’s a lie. you can check the obits for that, at least one guy was algerian, and there were other non-whites in the editorial room.

    so not to put words into your mouth, are you defending that “full retard” post?

    • Replies: @CupOfCanada
    @Razib Khan


    #57, i don’t give a shit if you or anyone else finds them offensive.

     

    Good. Neither do I. There's no right to not be offended. If I find something offensive, my recourse is to not buy the damned thing.

    i do find it offensive though if you tell me what is, or isn’t, offensive or against the islamic religion, as the poster above did, as if it matters, and as if you know.
     
    That's fair, and the post sanctimonious for sure.

    I find the cartoon of a black politician drawn as a monkey offensive.
     
    Not aware of the context, just the image. Nor am I inclined to delve deeper into Charlie Hedbo's form of satire. Just not my cup of tea.

    so not to put words into your mouth, are you defending that “full retard” post?
     
    The first part I am at least. I don't think last week's tragedy obligates me to approve of the work at the publication, and as annoying is this guy's post is, from my standpoint at least I assure you the "je suis Charlie" stuff is just as annoying.

    From your post:

    The reality here is that a certain element of the far cultural Left is really only interested in persuading everyone else on the Left. There’s no attempt to communicate with someone who doesn’t already share their values/axioms/priors.
     
    Thing is, Charlie Hedbo belongs to that same part of the cultural left. You're articulating quite well precisely what bothers me about their work, or at least what of their work I've seen.

    This is an aside, but just keep in mind that in the French context, the push to conform to cultural norms with respect to dress and religious observance comes as much from the left as the right. I'm a pretty secular guy in my worldview (private faith notwithstanding), but trying impose a forced secularism on people seems pretty abhorrent. If the sight of some dude in a kippah or turban or some chick in a headscarf bothers you, then that's your problem. This exact attitude is what bothers me about them. It's the same attitude that had the (ostensibly left wing) Party Quebecois bring forward a charter of "laïcité" (secularism) that would have banned the person cleaning the giant crucifix on top of Mount Royal from wearing a turban.

    I realize you're a critic of multiculturalism (though I think you and I may differ in our definition of it), but the fact is that the laissez faire Anglo-Saxon brand of multiculturalism has had far more success at integrating immigrants into society than the French brand of trying (and failing) to shove conformity down people's throats. I don't think people should be encouraged to maintain attitudes contrary to broader society, but it seems like the more you try to force people to conform, the more you isolate them and the less they actually integrate into society.

    On a different note though - have you read the Al-Khudhair paper that Davidski just blogged about? I'd be interested in your thoughts.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    , @Kothiru
    @Razib Khan

    I'd also like to add that drawing a black person as a monkey in France is not considered racist as it is in N.A., it's seen as no different as drawing any person as a monkey. Leftists don't consider cultural context, and think they can apply their own context universally.

  59. @CupOfCanada
    @omarali50

    I think you're more or less correct on culture being the biggest factor Omar. IMHO a big factor in Canada has been the government's policies towards indigenous people, which seems much more paternalistic and prone to creating dependency than a lot of other countries. The general thrust was "we'll give you food and clothing if you just stay on this parcel of marginal land." Even today there are no property rights on First Nations reserves - all the land is owned by the Crown and held in trust for use of that First Nation. Which effectively means if you repaint your house or reroof it, that house can be taken away from you at any point, since it wasn't really your house to begin with. Not really a great environment.

    Then there's geography. From what I understand, there are HUGE disparities from First Nation to First Nations in terms of quality of life outcomes, and one of the biggest factors is how connected the reserve is to the transportation network. If the reserve is connected to the highway network, outcomes aren't so bad. If the reserve isn't connected to the highway network, but has access to the sea or another major waterway, things are a bit worse. If the reserve has neither road nor sea access, but has access by ice road in winter, things are worse still. If the reserve doesn't even have access by ice road, the situation is absolutely horrific. I don't think it should surprise anyone that if you're living somewhere that even a jar of peanut butter has to be flown in on some float plane, living conditions aren't going to be great.

    On top of that, there was the residential schools system, where the government basically rounded up aboriginal children and sent them to boarding schools that were run by pedophiles and where they would be beaten for doing anything even resembling their original culture. Unsurprisingly, if your parents were abused, your home situation may not be all that great either.

    On top of that, First Nations reserves are the only part of Canada where the federal government administers health care and primary/secondary education; in all other cases it is funded provincially. Unsurprisingly, the government chronically underfunds First Nations education, to the tune of 50 cents on the dollar compared to broader society.

    So yah, lots of cultural/political explanations before looking for anything genetic.

    Replies: @Curious Canadian

    So, whitey’s fault then, and nurture over nature, and genetics aren’t terribly relevant here, and some bilge about rez schools that isn’t supported by fact (who told you it was like that? the media?).

    Wasn’t expecting that response here.

    Every society selects for something – what did theirs select for?

    • Replies: @CupOfCanada
    @Curious Canadian


    and some bilge about rez schools that isn’t supported by fact (who told you it was like that? the media?).
     
    Well, my Church did, since we ran a bunch of these schools, and have apologized for the horrorshows that happened there. I'm not particularly religious, but when my Church says it fucked up horrifically, I tend to believe they're telling the truth. Religions aren't in the habit of admitting fault for no reason.

    So, whitey’s fault then, and nurture over nature, and genetics aren’t terribly relevant here
     
    Well, I don't think you can really blame white people for most of the country been a frozen, mosquito filled swamp. But government policies (and I wouldn't characterize the government as specifically "white") certainly haven't helped.

    I think you'd be hard pressed to find a genetic reason for infant mortality to be twice as high in remote reserves as urban ones. Check out Wassimi et al (2011). Or Delisle et al (1995) with respect to type 2 diabetes. Half the gap on test scores between aboriginal and non-aboriginal people in BC is explained by whether or not an aboriginal student lives on a reserve. Half! Canadian aboriginal people are more diverse than their cousins to the south, but I don't think you can find genetic reasons for variance of a factor of two in things like infant mortality or diabetes prevalence. I do think you can pretty easily find social, economic and geographic variables that explain a lot of that. Stochastic factors like quality of First Nations leadership on each specific reserve probably plays a large role too.

    Every society selects for something – what did theirs select for?
     
    Larger brains for one. IIRC, aboriginal people in Canada have higher average brain volumes than just about any other population in the world, with the exception of Siberia. Mainly due to conserving heat in a cold climate. I don't think that's what you were getting at though was it.

    Otherwise I'd think it'd be the same as any other society on the cusp of the neolithic revolution. Obviously there are some genetic factors with respect to disease, lactase tolerance and stuff like that that are relevant, but the variation even between different bands from the same tribe is just too large to be explained away by that.

    The First Nations nearest to my home has among the best outcomes of any First Nation in Canada. In fact, living on that reserve places you in one of the top 100 communities in Canada when it comes to outcomes like health, education and income - the only reserve with that distinction. Is there some genetic difference between this band and the ~700 other bands in the country? I doubt it. It seems far more likely that factors like good leadership, good access to services like schools and hospitals in the surrounding area, and not signing a treaty until the 21st century had more to do with it. Worth noting too that part of that treaty granted property rights to people on the reserve, and waived the tax exempt status for members of the band too.

    Replies: @Sandgroper, @Pithlord

  60. Several of the commentators here seem to have a rather extreme view of how dominant the PC-Left view really is in Western society. To say that freedom of expression is curtailed as effectively in the modern West as it is in Saudi Arabia (just that it is controlled by non-violent means) seems absurd.
    The politically correct Left DOES exist and within the bubble (for example, in liberal academia) they had become astoundingly dominant. But I think (hope?) that this particular episode will finally cause serious cracks within that group.
    Having said that, I also worry that I/we may be missing something. What is it about the modern liberal elite that makes it susceptible to these memes? (“the West is responsible for these killings” or “the cartoonists were racist rightwing fascists who got what they deserved”, “people who are defending free speech are Whitesplaining and dont get the true awful condition of Western civilization”)
    Could it be something stuctural that will reassert itself after the first shock of the Hebdo episode has passed?
    And another tangential point: I think we should distinguish between two kinds of PC-leftists. Those who are ignorant or foolish or blinded by political correctness (Fisk?) and those who are deliberately cherry-picking or exaggerating or even lying in order to advance the cause of world revolution (“all is fair in love and war”).
    I am reproducing a description of these two groups I wrote on another friend’s blog post (http://leftfootforward.org/2015/01/why-it-is-wrong-to-blame-western-policies-for-the-paris-attacks/), if I am completely on the wrong track, set me right!

    1. A small percentage of the “I am not Charlie Hebdo” crowd still believe they are part of some vanguard revolutionary army, fighting (mostly clandestinely, and shadowed therefore by the secret police of the empire) to overthrow the world capitalist system as part of a planet-wide resistance movement led by the Soviet Union and the comintern (or, even better, by the fourth international or the fifth or an even purer and cleaner sixth). I guess Tariq Ali would fall into this group. In his own mind he is like Victor Lazlo, slipping in and out of outposts of the empire with the Gestapo one step behind him. Therefore in his case (and that of others living out a similar movie-based fantasy) one does not have to posit ignorance. Calculation is more likely; the world revolution must use this event (and EVERY event) to further the revolutionary cause and if that requires making up stories and nasty insinuations about dead cartoonists (and linking them to the actually right-wing Jylland Posten and implying that they would insult Mohammed, but never Moses, as Tariq slimily did on “Democracy Now”) is par for the course.

    2. A much larger group (Fisk among them) is simply partaking in the ancient pleasure of feeling simultaneously superior and guilty. Superior by implying that “we” (the West) are the only people capable of DOING things, while childlike simple people (aka “the oppressed”, which list conveniently includes Hafez Assad and even Mao) react helplessly and chaotically to our schemes and conquests. Guilty at the crimes committed in “our name”. Then EVEN MORE SUPERIOR in the feeling that we few, we happy few, are able to see through this charade and pass our wisdom on to the toiling brain-damaged masses who look up to us as moral and intellectual giants.

    Something like that.

    Any takers who can fix these thoughts or flesh them out?

    • Replies: @asdf
    @omarali50

    Omar,

    Because the left doesn't believe in HBD the only reasons they can come up with for NAM dysfunction are either discrimination or historical inequity (they get worse education, their culture is bad because of the legacy of slavery, etc). I know because before I knew about HBD I believed the same things, and like everyone else I thought this or that technocratic or social change would eventually make them just like us. After all, if you believe everyone is the same you need some explanation why they are different.

    The problem is that they are different because of genetics (and other things I grant you, but genetics is the big elephant). Once you eliminate the actual reason, you have to keep making up fake reasons why the difference remains. Since you are dealing purely in the realm of fantasy these fake reasons will of course not make sense, and as NAMs increase in quantity via immigration and their dysfunction remains despite great time and effort you'll need ever more ridiculous and nonsensical non-genetic explanation (micro-aggressions!).

    , @asdf
    @omarali50

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/27/opinion/joe-nocera-silicon-valleys-mirror-effect.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=c-column-top-span-region&region=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region


    There aren’t many women or African-Americans working in Silicon Valley who would agree. “Silicon Valley’s obsession with meritocracy is delusional,” Freada Kapor Klein, the co-chair of the Kapor Center for Social Impact, told The Los Angeles Times in May. “Unless someone wants to posit that intelligence is not evenly distributed across genders and race, there has to be some systemic explanation for what these numbers look like.”
     
    , @Pithlord
    @omarali50

    I agree that the American right has an exaggerated sense of how persecuted it is. I once imagined they could overcome the hostility of social psychology departments, but they are fragile creatures.

  61. @jtgw
    @Pithlord

    I completely agree about aspiring to a culture of toleration. To some extent I'm even on board with the PC project to the extent that it is about tolerating the existence of e.g. sexual minorities. The problem is that according to PC, such tolerance must be accompanied by a corresponding intolerance towards those who disapprove of sexually deviant behavior. But I am not going to match PC intolerance with my own intolerance. I'm not going to say that private companies can't fire people for expressing views that the company's shareholders feel are incompatible with the company's mission or self-image. Otherwise, what happened to freedom of association? I don't know if that's what you were saying, but this is a concern I have when people try to equate social pressure with state-sanctioned oppression.

    Replies: @asdf

    Since the 1960s there is no freedom of association. People can’t refuse to make a wedding cake for a gay couple if they don’t want to. You will give into all demands of protected classes or have your life ruined, period.

    If you can’t fire someone for being pro-gay, then you shouldn’t be able to fire someone for being anti-gay. But we all know this is a one way street. One view is protected by the government, and other prosecuted. Freedom of association got thrown out the window.

    The problem is, once you lose the message war in the private space, its inevitable that you’ll lose the message war in the public space. This whole commitment to free speech thing is based on cultural and social assumptions that most people who believe in PC don’t hold. Once they have enough power you can’t expect them not to use it any way they can, including the government.

    Seperation between public and private spheres aren’t the norm for human civilization. If you entire plan for fighting PC lies in erecting a barrier between the two that’s a pretty faulty strategy. Once the lynch mob is formed I doubt they are going to care about free speech, and to the extent they give it lip service they will rationalize around it in practice.

    It’s like a person sitting in a castle as large hostile armies gather around. They think the walls will keep them safe even as their enemies gather around them. The walls of free speech are fragile, they can’t hold back the hordes if they get to strong.

    • Replies: @Jtgw
    @asdf

    But what's your solution? To make a law against firing someone for expressing unpopular opinions? If not, then fight the system in a way consistent with your principles. Eg don't use Mozilla if you seriously object to their behavior.

    Replies: @Pithlord, @asdf

    , @Miguel Madeira
    @asdf

    "Since the 1960s there is no freedom of association."

    Well, I think that before it was not either (my idea is that before the 1960s was state-enforced segregation and now is state-enforced integration)

    "If you can’t fire someone for being pro-gay, then you shouldn’t be able to fire someone for being anti-gay."

    Being a Portuguese, I don't know the details of US law, but my idea is that what is forbidden is to fire employees by their non-voluntary choosen characteristics (like race and, according to many people, sexual orientation), not by their politically opinions; then, if I understand, an employee can't be fired for being gay or hetero, but can be fired for being pro-gay or anti-gay. It is like I think?

    Btw, I am some difficulty in understand who that laws against discrimination work in practice; in Portugal, where, by default, bosses can't fire employees (to fire an employee, a boss has to prove that there is a reason - from a set of possible reasons defined in the law - to the firing), I understand how could be possible to forbid people of being fired by their political and social views, sexual orientation, etc. But (I could be wrong) I think than in the USA the rule is the "at-will employment"; then, in practice, a boss could not fire an employee (even if for a "forbidden" reason) arguing that he is firing him by any other reason?

    "The problem is, once you lose the message war in the private space, its inevitable that you’ll lose the message war in the public space. This whole commitment to free speech thing is based on cultural and social assumptions that most people who believe in PC don’t hold. Once they have enough power you can’t expect them not to use it any way they can, including the government.

    Seperation between public and private spheres aren’t the norm for human civilization. If you entire plan for fighting PC lies in erecting a barrier between the two that’s a pretty faulty strategy. Once the lynch mob is formed I doubt they are going to care about free speech, and to the extent they give it lip service they will rationalize around it in practice.

    It’s like a person sitting in a castle as large hostile armies gather around. They think the walls will keep them safe even as their enemies gather around them. The walls of free speech are fragile, they can’t hold back the hordes if they get to strong."

    The PC left could say exactly the same thing - "if racism, homophobia, sexual discrimination, etc, etc, were dominant in the private sphere, sooner will be passed laws reflecting these values".

    And probably both are correct - at least in a democracy, if a group (the gays, the conservative christians, the blacks, the white southerners...) becomes very unpopular, sooner they will have the power of the state against them.

  62. @omarali50
    Several of the commentators here seem to have a rather extreme view of how dominant the PC-Left view really is in Western society. To say that freedom of expression is curtailed as effectively in the modern West as it is in Saudi Arabia (just that it is controlled by non-violent means) seems absurd.
    The politically correct Left DOES exist and within the bubble (for example, in liberal academia) they had become astoundingly dominant. But I think (hope?) that this particular episode will finally cause serious cracks within that group.
    Having said that, I also worry that I/we may be missing something. What is it about the modern liberal elite that makes it susceptible to these memes? ("the West is responsible for these killings" or "the cartoonists were racist rightwing fascists who got what they deserved", "people who are defending free speech are Whitesplaining and dont get the true awful condition of Western civilization")
    Could it be something stuctural that will reassert itself after the first shock of the Hebdo episode has passed?
    And another tangential point: I think we should distinguish between two kinds of PC-leftists. Those who are ignorant or foolish or blinded by political correctness (Fisk?) and those who are deliberately cherry-picking or exaggerating or even lying in order to advance the cause of world revolution ("all is fair in love and war").
    I am reproducing a description of these two groups I wrote on another friend's blog post (http://leftfootforward.org/2015/01/why-it-is-wrong-to-blame-western-policies-for-the-paris-attacks/), if I am completely on the wrong track, set me right!

    1. A small percentage of the “I am not Charlie Hebdo” crowd still believe they are part of some vanguard revolutionary army, fighting (mostly clandestinely, and shadowed therefore by the secret police of the empire) to overthrow the world capitalist system as part of a planet-wide resistance movement led by the Soviet Union and the comintern (or, even better, by the fourth international or the fifth or an even purer and cleaner sixth). I guess Tariq Ali would fall into this group. In his own mind he is like Victor Lazlo, slipping in and out of outposts of the empire with the Gestapo one step behind him. Therefore in his case (and that of others living out a similar movie-based fantasy) one does not have to posit ignorance. Calculation is more likely; the world revolution must use this event (and EVERY event) to further the revolutionary cause and if that requires making up stories and nasty insinuations about dead cartoonists (and linking them to the actually right-wing Jylland Posten and implying that they would insult Mohammed, but never Moses, as Tariq slimily did on “Democracy Now”) is par for the course.

    2. A much larger group (Fisk among them) is simply partaking in the ancient pleasure of feeling simultaneously superior and guilty. Superior by implying that “we” (the West) are the only people capable of DOING things, while childlike simple people (aka “the oppressed”, which list conveniently includes Hafez Assad and even Mao) react helplessly and chaotically to our schemes and conquests. Guilty at the crimes committed in “our name”. Then EVEN MORE SUPERIOR in the feeling that we few, we happy few, are able to see through this charade and pass our wisdom on to the toiling brain-damaged masses who look up to us as moral and intellectual giants.

    Something like that.

    Any takers who can fix these thoughts or flesh them out?

    Replies: @asdf, @asdf, @Pithlord

    Omar,

    Because the left doesn’t believe in HBD the only reasons they can come up with for NAM dysfunction are either discrimination or historical inequity (they get worse education, their culture is bad because of the legacy of slavery, etc). I know because before I knew about HBD I believed the same things, and like everyone else I thought this or that technocratic or social change would eventually make them just like us. After all, if you believe everyone is the same you need some explanation why they are different.

    The problem is that they are different because of genetics (and other things I grant you, but genetics is the big elephant). Once you eliminate the actual reason, you have to keep making up fake reasons why the difference remains. Since you are dealing purely in the realm of fantasy these fake reasons will of course not make sense, and as NAMs increase in quantity via immigration and their dysfunction remains despite great time and effort you’ll need ever more ridiculous and nonsensical non-genetic explanation (micro-aggressions!).

  63. @omarali50
    Several of the commentators here seem to have a rather extreme view of how dominant the PC-Left view really is in Western society. To say that freedom of expression is curtailed as effectively in the modern West as it is in Saudi Arabia (just that it is controlled by non-violent means) seems absurd.
    The politically correct Left DOES exist and within the bubble (for example, in liberal academia) they had become astoundingly dominant. But I think (hope?) that this particular episode will finally cause serious cracks within that group.
    Having said that, I also worry that I/we may be missing something. What is it about the modern liberal elite that makes it susceptible to these memes? ("the West is responsible for these killings" or "the cartoonists were racist rightwing fascists who got what they deserved", "people who are defending free speech are Whitesplaining and dont get the true awful condition of Western civilization")
    Could it be something stuctural that will reassert itself after the first shock of the Hebdo episode has passed?
    And another tangential point: I think we should distinguish between two kinds of PC-leftists. Those who are ignorant or foolish or blinded by political correctness (Fisk?) and those who are deliberately cherry-picking or exaggerating or even lying in order to advance the cause of world revolution ("all is fair in love and war").
    I am reproducing a description of these two groups I wrote on another friend's blog post (http://leftfootforward.org/2015/01/why-it-is-wrong-to-blame-western-policies-for-the-paris-attacks/), if I am completely on the wrong track, set me right!

    1. A small percentage of the “I am not Charlie Hebdo” crowd still believe they are part of some vanguard revolutionary army, fighting (mostly clandestinely, and shadowed therefore by the secret police of the empire) to overthrow the world capitalist system as part of a planet-wide resistance movement led by the Soviet Union and the comintern (or, even better, by the fourth international or the fifth or an even purer and cleaner sixth). I guess Tariq Ali would fall into this group. In his own mind he is like Victor Lazlo, slipping in and out of outposts of the empire with the Gestapo one step behind him. Therefore in his case (and that of others living out a similar movie-based fantasy) one does not have to posit ignorance. Calculation is more likely; the world revolution must use this event (and EVERY event) to further the revolutionary cause and if that requires making up stories and nasty insinuations about dead cartoonists (and linking them to the actually right-wing Jylland Posten and implying that they would insult Mohammed, but never Moses, as Tariq slimily did on “Democracy Now”) is par for the course.

    2. A much larger group (Fisk among them) is simply partaking in the ancient pleasure of feeling simultaneously superior and guilty. Superior by implying that “we” (the West) are the only people capable of DOING things, while childlike simple people (aka “the oppressed”, which list conveniently includes Hafez Assad and even Mao) react helplessly and chaotically to our schemes and conquests. Guilty at the crimes committed in “our name”. Then EVEN MORE SUPERIOR in the feeling that we few, we happy few, are able to see through this charade and pass our wisdom on to the toiling brain-damaged masses who look up to us as moral and intellectual giants.

    Something like that.

    Any takers who can fix these thoughts or flesh them out?

    Replies: @asdf, @asdf, @Pithlord

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/27/opinion/joe-nocera-silicon-valleys-mirror-effect.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=c-column-top-span-region&region=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region

    There aren’t many women or African-Americans working in Silicon Valley who would agree. “Silicon Valley’s obsession with meritocracy is delusional,” Freada Kapor Klein, the co-chair of the Kapor Center for Social Impact, told The Los Angeles Times in May. “Unless someone wants to posit that intelligence is not evenly distributed across genders and race, there has to be some systemic explanation for what these numbers look like.”

  64. @Razib Khan
    #57, i don't give a shit if you or anyone else finds them offensive. i do find it offensive though if you tell me what is, or isn't, offensive or against the islamic religion, as the poster above did, as if it matters, and as if you know.

    I find the cartoon of a black politician drawn as a monkey offensive.

    i'm assuming you didn't go full retard here, and know the anti-racist context for this specific? (with all due respect)

    also, the post i'm linking to has a lot of straight out lies in it. e.g., he claims that the cartoonists were all white. that's a lie. you can check the obits for that, at least one guy was algerian, and there were other non-whites in the editorial room.

    so not to put words into your mouth, are you defending that "full retard" post?

    Replies: @CupOfCanada, @Kothiru

    #57, i don’t give a shit if you or anyone else finds them offensive.

    Good. Neither do I. There’s no right to not be offended. If I find something offensive, my recourse is to not buy the damned thing.

    i do find it offensive though if you tell me what is, or isn’t, offensive or against the islamic religion, as the poster above did, as if it matters, and as if you know.

    That’s fair, and the post sanctimonious for sure.

    I find the cartoon of a black politician drawn as a monkey offensive.

    Not aware of the context, just the image. Nor am I inclined to delve deeper into Charlie Hedbo’s form of satire. Just not my cup of tea.

    so not to put words into your mouth, are you defending that “full retard” post?

    The first part I am at least. I don’t think last week’s tragedy obligates me to approve of the work at the publication, and as annoying is this guy’s post is, from my standpoint at least I assure you the “je suis Charlie” stuff is just as annoying.

    From your post:

    The reality here is that a certain element of the far cultural Left is really only interested in persuading everyone else on the Left. There’s no attempt to communicate with someone who doesn’t already share their values/axioms/priors.

    Thing is, Charlie Hedbo belongs to that same part of the cultural left. You’re articulating quite well precisely what bothers me about their work, or at least what of their work I’ve seen.

    This is an aside, but just keep in mind that in the French context, the push to conform to cultural norms with respect to dress and religious observance comes as much from the left as the right. I’m a pretty secular guy in my worldview (private faith notwithstanding), but trying impose a forced secularism on people seems pretty abhorrent. If the sight of some dude in a kippah or turban or some chick in a headscarf bothers you, then that’s your problem. This exact attitude is what bothers me about them. It’s the same attitude that had the (ostensibly left wing) Party Quebecois bring forward a charter of “laïcité” (secularism) that would have banned the person cleaning the giant crucifix on top of Mount Royal from wearing a turban.

    I realize you’re a critic of multiculturalism (though I think you and I may differ in our definition of it), but the fact is that the laissez faire Anglo-Saxon brand of multiculturalism has had far more success at integrating immigrants into society than the French brand of trying (and failing) to shove conformity down people’s throats. I don’t think people should be encouraged to maintain attitudes contrary to broader society, but it seems like the more you try to force people to conform, the more you isolate them and the less they actually integrate into society.

    On a different note though – have you read the Al-Khudhair paper that Davidski just blogged about? I’d be interested in your thoughts.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @CupOfCanada


    Not aware of the context, just the image. Nor am I inclined to delve deeper into Charlie Hedbo’s form of satire. Just not my cup of tea.
     
    Had you condescended to delve into the context, you might have realized that the satire was wholly anti-racist (a full explanation is given at http://www.understandingcharliehebdo.com/#bleue-racist). How can you know whether or not a form of satire is "your cup of tea" if you don't understand its context or the points it's making?
    My own cup of tea is anti-racist satire, especially when it throws the racist iconography of right-wing organizations back in their faces, as that Charlie Hebdo cartoon did. It's sad that much of the CH grave-pissing turned out to be as misguided as the "Cancel Colbert" kerfuffle.

    Replies: @CupOfCanada

  65. @asdf
    @jtgw

    Since the 1960s there is no freedom of association. People can't refuse to make a wedding cake for a gay couple if they don't want to. You will give into all demands of protected classes or have your life ruined, period.

    If you can't fire someone for being pro-gay, then you shouldn't be able to fire someone for being anti-gay. But we all know this is a one way street. One view is protected by the government, and other prosecuted. Freedom of association got thrown out the window.

    The problem is, once you lose the message war in the private space, its inevitable that you'll lose the message war in the public space. This whole commitment to free speech thing is based on cultural and social assumptions that most people who believe in PC don't hold. Once they have enough power you can't expect them not to use it any way they can, including the government.

    Seperation between public and private spheres aren't the norm for human civilization. If you entire plan for fighting PC lies in erecting a barrier between the two that's a pretty faulty strategy. Once the lynch mob is formed I doubt they are going to care about free speech, and to the extent they give it lip service they will rationalize around it in practice.

    It's like a person sitting in a castle as large hostile armies gather around. They think the walls will keep them safe even as their enemies gather around them. The walls of free speech are fragile, they can't hold back the hordes if they get to strong.

    Replies: @Jtgw, @Miguel Madeira

    But what’s your solution? To make a law against firing someone for expressing unpopular opinions? If not, then fight the system in a way consistent with your principles. Eg don’t use Mozilla if you seriously object to their behavior.

    • Replies: @Pithlord
    @Jtgw

    Why are the only solutions making laws? We arguably have a greater ability to form the culture. Businesses fire people with controversial opinions because they think that will help them in the market place. In a culture that valued eccentricity/free speech, they would make the opposite calculation.

    Replies: @Jtgw

    , @asdf
    @Jtgw

    I think that the principal that "if I don't do this, that person won't do that to me," has to be abandoned in this time and place. Recipricol acceptance of rights is a possible Snelling point, but its not an automatic. It rests on certain assumptions, many of which don't hold today especially when dealing with PC.

    A victory over PC has to be affected before any return to reciprocal rights can be addressed. Mercy is the prerogative of the victor, the vanquished can only accept terms. And PC fundamentally doesn't have the substance necessary to be a just victor. It's empirical actions show this.

    This is part of the problem with diversity. People who are similar, that share understanding and bonds at a substantial core, can handle disagreements and principals like free speech because at the end of the day its all something of an in-group built on trust. The team can have disagreements about strategy as long as its still a team. There isn't the same fear of being the vanquished, rather no matter how the disagreement gets decided we are still all "in this together." However, this doesn't work in an overly diverse society, where the genetic and cultural differences are just too great. Such societies are prone to factionalism and conflict, and attempts to create artificial understanding and bonds (PC, multiculturalism) have largely failed because that's not how nature itself works.

    Until PC is defeated and a sounder cultural and social regime established you need to do what it takes to defeat it. I favor whatever works empirically. Boycotts haven't really shown themselves to be very affective unless the cultural battle has already been won. And the best way to win the cultural battle is to allow people freedom of expressions without punishment. If people wouldn't get fired for un-PC expressions we might just find that people's inner thoughts are a lot less PC then is allowed these days.

    That's how most totalitarian regimes get overthrown. Nobody believes in it anymore but they shut up or say the slogans as required because of the carrots and sticks in place. But once a movement gets going and you see other people expressing doubts about the regime it becomes a preference cascade. People's real beliefs, often even subconscious, finally get said in the open and group action occurs.

    Replies: @Jtgw

  66. @jtgw
    @Miguel Madeira

    I've been noticing the same thing. When the Matt Taylor Shirtgate blew up, I was initially sympathetic towards his defenders, but it started to dawn on me that, from a libertarian perspective, I couldn't object to anything done by either party. This was not a true free speech issue. He had a right to wear that shirt, but his critics had a right to criticize him for offending their sensibilities, and he had a corresponding right to apologize for offending them. I'm not aware that he was threatened with the sack unless he apologized, let alone threatened with fines or jailtime. I can accept it as an example of the kind of hysteria that grips online feminism, but when you get down to it he was completely free to ignore them or to respond negatively, if he so chose. That he chose to respond with an apology was completely within his rights.

    For opponents of the domination of PC in our culture, what exactly is the remedy being proposed? If we want to fight it with arguments, I'm completely on board, but that's all we have at our disposal if we are not to abandon the very principles of free speech that we are fighting for. We shouldn't start demanding special legal protections for our anti-PC views.

    Replies: @Miguel Madeira

    This remember me the thing about “thin vs. thick libertarianism” – the libertarians who think that libertarianism only requires opposition to the initiation of force versus the libertarians who think that libertarianism requires a set of moral values beyond simply the non-initiation of force. The self-proclaimed “thick libertarians” are from the cultural left, saying that libertarians should be also against racism, homophobia, etc., (fighting it by non-statist ways, not by laws), but a similar argument can be made against excessive PC.

  67. @Curious Canadian
    @CupOfCanada

    So, whitey's fault then, and nurture over nature, and genetics aren't terribly relevant here, and some bilge about rez schools that isn't supported by fact (who told you it was like that? the media?).

    Wasn't expecting that response here.

    Every society selects for something - what did theirs select for?

    Replies: @CupOfCanada

    and some bilge about rez schools that isn’t supported by fact (who told you it was like that? the media?).

    Well, my Church did, since we ran a bunch of these schools, and have apologized for the horrorshows that happened there. I’m not particularly religious, but when my Church says it fucked up horrifically, I tend to believe they’re telling the truth. Religions aren’t in the habit of admitting fault for no reason.

    So, whitey’s fault then, and nurture over nature, and genetics aren’t terribly relevant here

    Well, I don’t think you can really blame white people for most of the country been a frozen, mosquito filled swamp. But government policies (and I wouldn’t characterize the government as specifically “white”) certainly haven’t helped.

    I think you’d be hard pressed to find a genetic reason for infant mortality to be twice as high in remote reserves as urban ones. Check out Wassimi et al (2011). Or Delisle et al (1995) with respect to type 2 diabetes. Half the gap on test scores between aboriginal and non-aboriginal people in BC is explained by whether or not an aboriginal student lives on a reserve. Half! Canadian aboriginal people are more diverse than their cousins to the south, but I don’t think you can find genetic reasons for variance of a factor of two in things like infant mortality or diabetes prevalence. I do think you can pretty easily find social, economic and geographic variables that explain a lot of that. Stochastic factors like quality of First Nations leadership on each specific reserve probably plays a large role too.

    Every society selects for something – what did theirs select for?

    Larger brains for one. IIRC, aboriginal people in Canada have higher average brain volumes than just about any other population in the world, with the exception of Siberia. Mainly due to conserving heat in a cold climate. I don’t think that’s what you were getting at though was it.

    Otherwise I’d think it’d be the same as any other society on the cusp of the neolithic revolution. Obviously there are some genetic factors with respect to disease, lactase tolerance and stuff like that that are relevant, but the variation even between different bands from the same tribe is just too large to be explained away by that.

    The First Nations nearest to my home has among the best outcomes of any First Nation in Canada. In fact, living on that reserve places you in one of the top 100 communities in Canada when it comes to outcomes like health, education and income – the only reserve with that distinction. Is there some genetic difference between this band and the ~700 other bands in the country? I doubt it. It seems far more likely that factors like good leadership, good access to services like schools and hospitals in the surrounding area, and not signing a treaty until the 21st century had more to do with it. Worth noting too that part of that treaty granted property rights to people on the reserve, and waived the tax exempt status for members of the band too.

    • Replies: @Sandgroper
    @CupOfCanada

    Not that I have delved much into Canadian First Nations, but I see some parallels with Australian Aboriginal people living in remote communities. Not to over-generalise, though, because this is comparing people on the cusp of the Neolithic revolution with people who were still living in the Pleistocene, with possibly a bit of imported and adopted culture within the past 5,000 years along with a bit of admixture and some dogs. But as you were listing the issues, I was ticking the boxes, and in Australia we are talking about people with a mean IQ of 65.

    I'm very curious to know who the most successful group are. I'm guessing Cree, but it's just a guess. But that would have to be some sub-group of the Cree, no?

    Replies: @CupOfCanada

    , @Pithlord
    @CupOfCanada

    I have no doubt you are right that public policy accounts for a lot of the difference in social outcomes between reserve aboriginals and the rest of the Canadian population. It certainly accounts fro the difference between reserve aboriginals and off-reserve aboriginals. But then you should also acknowledge that aboriginal policy in Canada has been in the hands of those who want to accommodate aboriginal nationalism since 1970 (certainly since 1982).

    So the quality of reserve schools and reserve government has *something* to do with lack of property rights and nepotistic and corrupt governance, and generally with the principle that the law of the land does not run on reserve. Also, these governments are increasingly dependent on resource revenue, so they show the typical "resource curse".

    You live in Kelowna?

    Replies: @Sandgroper

  68. @asdf
    @jtgw

    Since the 1960s there is no freedom of association. People can't refuse to make a wedding cake for a gay couple if they don't want to. You will give into all demands of protected classes or have your life ruined, period.

    If you can't fire someone for being pro-gay, then you shouldn't be able to fire someone for being anti-gay. But we all know this is a one way street. One view is protected by the government, and other prosecuted. Freedom of association got thrown out the window.

    The problem is, once you lose the message war in the private space, its inevitable that you'll lose the message war in the public space. This whole commitment to free speech thing is based on cultural and social assumptions that most people who believe in PC don't hold. Once they have enough power you can't expect them not to use it any way they can, including the government.

    Seperation between public and private spheres aren't the norm for human civilization. If you entire plan for fighting PC lies in erecting a barrier between the two that's a pretty faulty strategy. Once the lynch mob is formed I doubt they are going to care about free speech, and to the extent they give it lip service they will rationalize around it in practice.

    It's like a person sitting in a castle as large hostile armies gather around. They think the walls will keep them safe even as their enemies gather around them. The walls of free speech are fragile, they can't hold back the hordes if they get to strong.

    Replies: @Jtgw, @Miguel Madeira

    “Since the 1960s there is no freedom of association.”

    Well, I think that before it was not either (my idea is that before the 1960s was state-enforced segregation and now is state-enforced integration)

    “If you can’t fire someone for being pro-gay, then you shouldn’t be able to fire someone for being anti-gay.”

    Being a Portuguese, I don’t know the details of US law, but my idea is that what is forbidden is to fire employees by their non-voluntary choosen characteristics (like race and, according to many people, sexual orientation), not by their politically opinions; then, if I understand, an employee can’t be fired for being gay or hetero, but can be fired for being pro-gay or anti-gay. It is like I think?

    Btw, I am some difficulty in understand who that laws against discrimination work in practice; in Portugal, where, by default, bosses can’t fire employees (to fire an employee, a boss has to prove that there is a reason – from a set of possible reasons defined in the law – to the firing), I understand how could be possible to forbid people of being fired by their political and social views, sexual orientation, etc. But (I could be wrong) I think than in the USA the rule is the “at-will employment”; then, in practice, a boss could not fire an employee (even if for a “forbidden” reason) arguing that he is firing him by any other reason?

    “The problem is, once you lose the message war in the private space, its inevitable that you’ll lose the message war in the public space. This whole commitment to free speech thing is based on cultural and social assumptions that most people who believe in PC don’t hold. Once they have enough power you can’t expect them not to use it any way they can, including the government.

    Seperation between public and private spheres aren’t the norm for human civilization. If you entire plan for fighting PC lies in erecting a barrier between the two that’s a pretty faulty strategy. Once the lynch mob is formed I doubt they are going to care about free speech, and to the extent they give it lip service they will rationalize around it in practice.

    It’s like a person sitting in a castle as large hostile armies gather around. They think the walls will keep them safe even as their enemies gather around them. The walls of free speech are fragile, they can’t hold back the hordes if they get to strong.”

    The PC left could say exactly the same thing – “if racism, homophobia, sexual discrimination, etc, etc, were dominant in the private sphere, sooner will be passed laws reflecting these values”.

    And probably both are correct – at least in a democracy, if a group (the gays, the conservative christians, the blacks, the white southerners…) becomes very unpopular, sooner they will have the power of the state against them.

  69. @Jtgw
    @asdf

    But what's your solution? To make a law against firing someone for expressing unpopular opinions? If not, then fight the system in a way consistent with your principles. Eg don't use Mozilla if you seriously object to their behavior.

    Replies: @Pithlord, @asdf

    Why are the only solutions making laws? We arguably have a greater ability to form the culture. Businesses fire people with controversial opinions because they think that will help them in the market place. In a culture that valued eccentricity/free speech, they would make the opposite calculation.

    • Replies: @Jtgw
    @Pithlord

    Absolutely no objection to this. It's great that our political and economic system allows rich people like Ron to create alternative media sources. This is how we fight PC, by using the Internet to debunk it.

    Replies: @asdf

  70. @omarali50
    Several of the commentators here seem to have a rather extreme view of how dominant the PC-Left view really is in Western society. To say that freedom of expression is curtailed as effectively in the modern West as it is in Saudi Arabia (just that it is controlled by non-violent means) seems absurd.
    The politically correct Left DOES exist and within the bubble (for example, in liberal academia) they had become astoundingly dominant. But I think (hope?) that this particular episode will finally cause serious cracks within that group.
    Having said that, I also worry that I/we may be missing something. What is it about the modern liberal elite that makes it susceptible to these memes? ("the West is responsible for these killings" or "the cartoonists were racist rightwing fascists who got what they deserved", "people who are defending free speech are Whitesplaining and dont get the true awful condition of Western civilization")
    Could it be something stuctural that will reassert itself after the first shock of the Hebdo episode has passed?
    And another tangential point: I think we should distinguish between two kinds of PC-leftists. Those who are ignorant or foolish or blinded by political correctness (Fisk?) and those who are deliberately cherry-picking or exaggerating or even lying in order to advance the cause of world revolution ("all is fair in love and war").
    I am reproducing a description of these two groups I wrote on another friend's blog post (http://leftfootforward.org/2015/01/why-it-is-wrong-to-blame-western-policies-for-the-paris-attacks/), if I am completely on the wrong track, set me right!

    1. A small percentage of the “I am not Charlie Hebdo” crowd still believe they are part of some vanguard revolutionary army, fighting (mostly clandestinely, and shadowed therefore by the secret police of the empire) to overthrow the world capitalist system as part of a planet-wide resistance movement led by the Soviet Union and the comintern (or, even better, by the fourth international or the fifth or an even purer and cleaner sixth). I guess Tariq Ali would fall into this group. In his own mind he is like Victor Lazlo, slipping in and out of outposts of the empire with the Gestapo one step behind him. Therefore in his case (and that of others living out a similar movie-based fantasy) one does not have to posit ignorance. Calculation is more likely; the world revolution must use this event (and EVERY event) to further the revolutionary cause and if that requires making up stories and nasty insinuations about dead cartoonists (and linking them to the actually right-wing Jylland Posten and implying that they would insult Mohammed, but never Moses, as Tariq slimily did on “Democracy Now”) is par for the course.

    2. A much larger group (Fisk among them) is simply partaking in the ancient pleasure of feeling simultaneously superior and guilty. Superior by implying that “we” (the West) are the only people capable of DOING things, while childlike simple people (aka “the oppressed”, which list conveniently includes Hafez Assad and even Mao) react helplessly and chaotically to our schemes and conquests. Guilty at the crimes committed in “our name”. Then EVEN MORE SUPERIOR in the feeling that we few, we happy few, are able to see through this charade and pass our wisdom on to the toiling brain-damaged masses who look up to us as moral and intellectual giants.

    Something like that.

    Any takers who can fix these thoughts or flesh them out?

    Replies: @asdf, @asdf, @Pithlord

    I agree that the American right has an exaggerated sense of how persecuted it is. I once imagined they could overcome the hostility of social psychology departments, but they are fragile creatures.

  71. @CupOfCanada
    @Curious Canadian


    and some bilge about rez schools that isn’t supported by fact (who told you it was like that? the media?).
     
    Well, my Church did, since we ran a bunch of these schools, and have apologized for the horrorshows that happened there. I'm not particularly religious, but when my Church says it fucked up horrifically, I tend to believe they're telling the truth. Religions aren't in the habit of admitting fault for no reason.

    So, whitey’s fault then, and nurture over nature, and genetics aren’t terribly relevant here
     
    Well, I don't think you can really blame white people for most of the country been a frozen, mosquito filled swamp. But government policies (and I wouldn't characterize the government as specifically "white") certainly haven't helped.

    I think you'd be hard pressed to find a genetic reason for infant mortality to be twice as high in remote reserves as urban ones. Check out Wassimi et al (2011). Or Delisle et al (1995) with respect to type 2 diabetes. Half the gap on test scores between aboriginal and non-aboriginal people in BC is explained by whether or not an aboriginal student lives on a reserve. Half! Canadian aboriginal people are more diverse than their cousins to the south, but I don't think you can find genetic reasons for variance of a factor of two in things like infant mortality or diabetes prevalence. I do think you can pretty easily find social, economic and geographic variables that explain a lot of that. Stochastic factors like quality of First Nations leadership on each specific reserve probably plays a large role too.

    Every society selects for something – what did theirs select for?
     
    Larger brains for one. IIRC, aboriginal people in Canada have higher average brain volumes than just about any other population in the world, with the exception of Siberia. Mainly due to conserving heat in a cold climate. I don't think that's what you were getting at though was it.

    Otherwise I'd think it'd be the same as any other society on the cusp of the neolithic revolution. Obviously there are some genetic factors with respect to disease, lactase tolerance and stuff like that that are relevant, but the variation even between different bands from the same tribe is just too large to be explained away by that.

    The First Nations nearest to my home has among the best outcomes of any First Nation in Canada. In fact, living on that reserve places you in one of the top 100 communities in Canada when it comes to outcomes like health, education and income - the only reserve with that distinction. Is there some genetic difference between this band and the ~700 other bands in the country? I doubt it. It seems far more likely that factors like good leadership, good access to services like schools and hospitals in the surrounding area, and not signing a treaty until the 21st century had more to do with it. Worth noting too that part of that treaty granted property rights to people on the reserve, and waived the tax exempt status for members of the band too.

    Replies: @Sandgroper, @Pithlord

    Not that I have delved much into Canadian First Nations, but I see some parallels with Australian Aboriginal people living in remote communities. Not to over-generalise, though, because this is comparing people on the cusp of the Neolithic revolution with people who were still living in the Pleistocene, with possibly a bit of imported and adopted culture within the past 5,000 years along with a bit of admixture and some dogs. But as you were listing the issues, I was ticking the boxes, and in Australia we are talking about people with a mean IQ of 65.

    I’m very curious to know who the most successful group are. I’m guessing Cree, but it’s just a guess. But that would have to be some sub-group of the Cree, no?

    • Replies: @CupOfCanada
    @Sandgroper

    @Pithlord is referring to the Westbank Band, which is of Salish extraction - so related to the Flathead. They're located in the suburbs of Kelowna. Beautiful area - it's a major wine producing and tourist region, with hot dry summers, warm sandy beeches, and a cool deep lake to cool off in. The specific group I was referring to is one of the Salish bands in the suburbs of Vancouver, but the Westbank certainly qualify as extremely successful. The band located to the south of Kelowna (the Osoyoos) is a pretty impressive success story too. The band has 400 members, and the band owned businesses employ 4,000 people. So yes, very entrepreneurial. First Nations in BC also tend to vote more conservatively for whatever reason.

    From my standpoint, it seems that First Nations reserves that are most likely to have "good" living conditions tend to be located in British Columbia, not covered by any treaty signed in the 19th-early 20th century ("numbered treaties" - only British Columbia wasn't significantly included in these treaties), and located in urban and suburban areas. But there are huge exceptions to this in both directions - that study on diabetes found rates differed by a factor of two between two neighbouring bands of the same tribe located in similar environments. So even keeping cultural and political factors constant there's a huge amount of variation.

    A lot of the Cree seem to have gotten bad luck by 1) being located in less than ideal land (mostly swamps and permafrost) and 2) having all signed treaties in the 19th-early 20th century. Those treaties, while intended to guarantee certain rights and privileges to aboriginal peoples in Canada, seem to also constrain them. I think @Pithlord makes a good point that since at least the 1970s, the Canadian government's intentions towards aboriginal people have been positive. I think that a lot of well intended policies are actually having a pretty negative impact (the lack of property rights being one of them). Some people, particularly on the left, claim that the collective ownership of land on reserves protects the people their from having their homes bought up by hypothetical predatory speculators. From my standpoint, the policies of collectivization seem to have had pretty disastrous consequences in the rest of the world, so I don't see why it would be any different for Canadian aboriginal people. I don't think private ownership should be rammed down any First Nation's throat, but to not even have the option due to some 150 year old treaty?

    I do think there is one very plausible genetic link, though not the one most people would expect - metabolism. First Nations in Canada are at very high risk to develop diabetes, and while the Inuit are an extreme example of this, I don't think it's a stretch to suggest that there may have been some adaptations both in Siberia and North America to reflect the availability of different food sources in a cold climate. There is an absolute epidemic of diabetes among First Nations mothers, and particularly when not treated properly this has been correlated with high rates of macrosomia as well (though I'd note that in Australian aboriginal people macrosomia does not have the same association). Rodrigues et al (2000) has a good overview of the overall prevalence, and there are quite a few studies that show children born to diabetic mothers have lower education outcomes and increased risk of hyperactivity. There's been quite a few studies that have found genetic risk factors specific to Native Americans for type 2 diabetes too. So I think it's plausible that a lot of First Nations kids are being dealt a shitty hand from before birth. And it really doesn't help that a single head of cabbage can cost $30 in some of these remote places.

    That 64 IQ number is from Richard Lynn isn't it? I thought he was pretty thoroughly debunked for poor methodology (like using test scores from a Spanish school for the disabled as his "sample" for Equatorial Guinea). I thought this paper was pretty interesting: http://cbe.anu.edu.au/research/papers/ceprdpapers/dp578.pdf They found that when you controlled for socioeconomic factors, the test score gap between aboriginal and non-aboriginal children was reduced to 0.5 standard deviations. They fail to mention that the correlation is no longer statistically significant (though to be fair it's pretty close to the p<10% level), but even if the correlation is real, I'm not very convinced that this is due to something fundamentally wrong with aboriginal people. It could be due to something unique and different that society is failing to address.

    Re: the Neolithic - some Inuit groups were even working with copper. Farming was just pretty much impossible where they lived. I find it a bit offensive (sorry Razib) the way groups like PETA judge the Inuit for their way of life. What are they supposed to do except hunt seals? PETA claims they don't target the Inuit seal hunt, but their activism sure has been effective at destroying the market for seal fur. Now the Inuit can only use the seal hunt for subsistence. To paraphrase Inuit throat singer Tanya Tagaq, fuck PETA, and people shout eat and wear as much seal as possible.

    But yah... I really don't think it should surprise people that those who experience the most government intervention in their lives have a bad time.

    Replies: @Pithlord

  72. @CupOfCanada
    @Curious Canadian


    and some bilge about rez schools that isn’t supported by fact (who told you it was like that? the media?).
     
    Well, my Church did, since we ran a bunch of these schools, and have apologized for the horrorshows that happened there. I'm not particularly religious, but when my Church says it fucked up horrifically, I tend to believe they're telling the truth. Religions aren't in the habit of admitting fault for no reason.

    So, whitey’s fault then, and nurture over nature, and genetics aren’t terribly relevant here
     
    Well, I don't think you can really blame white people for most of the country been a frozen, mosquito filled swamp. But government policies (and I wouldn't characterize the government as specifically "white") certainly haven't helped.

    I think you'd be hard pressed to find a genetic reason for infant mortality to be twice as high in remote reserves as urban ones. Check out Wassimi et al (2011). Or Delisle et al (1995) with respect to type 2 diabetes. Half the gap on test scores between aboriginal and non-aboriginal people in BC is explained by whether or not an aboriginal student lives on a reserve. Half! Canadian aboriginal people are more diverse than their cousins to the south, but I don't think you can find genetic reasons for variance of a factor of two in things like infant mortality or diabetes prevalence. I do think you can pretty easily find social, economic and geographic variables that explain a lot of that. Stochastic factors like quality of First Nations leadership on each specific reserve probably plays a large role too.

    Every society selects for something – what did theirs select for?
     
    Larger brains for one. IIRC, aboriginal people in Canada have higher average brain volumes than just about any other population in the world, with the exception of Siberia. Mainly due to conserving heat in a cold climate. I don't think that's what you were getting at though was it.

    Otherwise I'd think it'd be the same as any other society on the cusp of the neolithic revolution. Obviously there are some genetic factors with respect to disease, lactase tolerance and stuff like that that are relevant, but the variation even between different bands from the same tribe is just too large to be explained away by that.

    The First Nations nearest to my home has among the best outcomes of any First Nation in Canada. In fact, living on that reserve places you in one of the top 100 communities in Canada when it comes to outcomes like health, education and income - the only reserve with that distinction. Is there some genetic difference between this band and the ~700 other bands in the country? I doubt it. It seems far more likely that factors like good leadership, good access to services like schools and hospitals in the surrounding area, and not signing a treaty until the 21st century had more to do with it. Worth noting too that part of that treaty granted property rights to people on the reserve, and waived the tax exempt status for members of the band too.

    Replies: @Sandgroper, @Pithlord

    I have no doubt you are right that public policy accounts for a lot of the difference in social outcomes between reserve aboriginals and the rest of the Canadian population. It certainly accounts fro the difference between reserve aboriginals and off-reserve aboriginals. But then you should also acknowledge that aboriginal policy in Canada has been in the hands of those who want to accommodate aboriginal nationalism since 1970 (certainly since 1982).

    So the quality of reserve schools and reserve government has *something* to do with lack of property rights and nepotistic and corrupt governance, and generally with the principle that the law of the land does not run on reserve. Also, these governments are increasingly dependent on resource revenue, so they show the typical “resource curse”.

    You live in Kelowna?

    • Replies: @Sandgroper
    @Pithlord

    Not Cree then. Flatheads?

    Replies: @Pithlord

  73. 1. A small percentage of the “I am not Charlie Hebdo” crowd still believe they are part of some vanguard revolutionary army, fighting (mostly clandestinely, and shadowed therefore by the secret police of the empire) to overthrow the world capitalist system

    A very curious fact is that many of the Charlie Hebdo writers would fit right into that description! (especially the editor, Charb)

  74. @Jtgw
    @asdf

    But what's your solution? To make a law against firing someone for expressing unpopular opinions? If not, then fight the system in a way consistent with your principles. Eg don't use Mozilla if you seriously object to their behavior.

    Replies: @Pithlord, @asdf

    I think that the principal that “if I don’t do this, that person won’t do that to me,” has to be abandoned in this time and place. Recipricol acceptance of rights is a possible Snelling point, but its not an automatic. It rests on certain assumptions, many of which don’t hold today especially when dealing with PC.

    A victory over PC has to be affected before any return to reciprocal rights can be addressed. Mercy is the prerogative of the victor, the vanquished can only accept terms. And PC fundamentally doesn’t have the substance necessary to be a just victor. It’s empirical actions show this.

    This is part of the problem with diversity. People who are similar, that share understanding and bonds at a substantial core, can handle disagreements and principals like free speech because at the end of the day its all something of an in-group built on trust. The team can have disagreements about strategy as long as its still a team. There isn’t the same fear of being the vanquished, rather no matter how the disagreement gets decided we are still all “in this together.” However, this doesn’t work in an overly diverse society, where the genetic and cultural differences are just too great. Such societies are prone to factionalism and conflict, and attempts to create artificial understanding and bonds (PC, multiculturalism) have largely failed because that’s not how nature itself works.

    Until PC is defeated and a sounder cultural and social regime established you need to do what it takes to defeat it. I favor whatever works empirically. Boycotts haven’t really shown themselves to be very affective unless the cultural battle has already been won. And the best way to win the cultural battle is to allow people freedom of expressions without punishment. If people wouldn’t get fired for un-PC expressions we might just find that people’s inner thoughts are a lot less PC then is allowed these days.

    That’s how most totalitarian regimes get overthrown. Nobody believes in it anymore but they shut up or say the slogans as required because of the carrots and sticks in place. But once a movement gets going and you see other people expressing doubts about the regime it becomes a preference cascade. People’s real beliefs, often even subconscious, finally get said in the open and group action occurs.

    • Replies: @Jtgw
    @asdf

    You are dancing around my question. Are you trying to say that we need laws protecting people's jobs in this kind of situation? Sure, if you want the kind of sclerotic labor market they have in Spain where no one will hire new people since it's impossible to fire current employees. But I disagree with the notion that a job is a human right on the same level as life, liberty and property.

  75. @asdf
    @Jtgw

    I think that the principal that "if I don't do this, that person won't do that to me," has to be abandoned in this time and place. Recipricol acceptance of rights is a possible Snelling point, but its not an automatic. It rests on certain assumptions, many of which don't hold today especially when dealing with PC.

    A victory over PC has to be affected before any return to reciprocal rights can be addressed. Mercy is the prerogative of the victor, the vanquished can only accept terms. And PC fundamentally doesn't have the substance necessary to be a just victor. It's empirical actions show this.

    This is part of the problem with diversity. People who are similar, that share understanding and bonds at a substantial core, can handle disagreements and principals like free speech because at the end of the day its all something of an in-group built on trust. The team can have disagreements about strategy as long as its still a team. There isn't the same fear of being the vanquished, rather no matter how the disagreement gets decided we are still all "in this together." However, this doesn't work in an overly diverse society, where the genetic and cultural differences are just too great. Such societies are prone to factionalism and conflict, and attempts to create artificial understanding and bonds (PC, multiculturalism) have largely failed because that's not how nature itself works.

    Until PC is defeated and a sounder cultural and social regime established you need to do what it takes to defeat it. I favor whatever works empirically. Boycotts haven't really shown themselves to be very affective unless the cultural battle has already been won. And the best way to win the cultural battle is to allow people freedom of expressions without punishment. If people wouldn't get fired for un-PC expressions we might just find that people's inner thoughts are a lot less PC then is allowed these days.

    That's how most totalitarian regimes get overthrown. Nobody believes in it anymore but they shut up or say the slogans as required because of the carrots and sticks in place. But once a movement gets going and you see other people expressing doubts about the regime it becomes a preference cascade. People's real beliefs, often even subconscious, finally get said in the open and group action occurs.

    Replies: @Jtgw

    You are dancing around my question. Are you trying to say that we need laws protecting people’s jobs in this kind of situation? Sure, if you want the kind of sclerotic labor market they have in Spain where no one will hire new people since it’s impossible to fire current employees. But I disagree with the notion that a job is a human right on the same level as life, liberty and property.

  76. @Pithlord
    @Jtgw

    Why are the only solutions making laws? We arguably have a greater ability to form the culture. Businesses fire people with controversial opinions because they think that will help them in the market place. In a culture that valued eccentricity/free speech, they would make the opposite calculation.

    Replies: @Jtgw

    Absolutely no objection to this. It’s great that our political and economic system allows rich people like Ron to create alternative media sources. This is how we fight PC, by using the Internet to debunk it.

    • Replies: @asdf
    @Jtgw

    1) If PC ever decides to come down on Ron you can't do anything to stop it. If this ever becomes more then a newsletter for a tiny portion of society that is what will happen. Look what happens to mainstream journalists who question PC.

    2) Other then an internet circle jerk sites like this do little. It has had zero effect on society, which has only gotten more PC. Nobody here would talk about this site at work or amongst friends for fear of what would happen, which means it will only ever be a fringe outlet for a small part of the population.

    Replies: @Pithlord

  77. @Pithlord
    @CupOfCanada

    I have no doubt you are right that public policy accounts for a lot of the difference in social outcomes between reserve aboriginals and the rest of the Canadian population. It certainly accounts fro the difference between reserve aboriginals and off-reserve aboriginals. But then you should also acknowledge that aboriginal policy in Canada has been in the hands of those who want to accommodate aboriginal nationalism since 1970 (certainly since 1982).

    So the quality of reserve schools and reserve government has *something* to do with lack of property rights and nepotistic and corrupt governance, and generally with the principle that the law of the land does not run on reserve. Also, these governments are increasingly dependent on resource revenue, so they show the typical "resource curse".

    You live in Kelowna?

    Replies: @Sandgroper

    Not Cree then. Flatheads?

    • Replies: @Pithlord
    @Sandgroper

    My guess is that "Cup of Soup" is referring to the Westbank First Nation, which is part of the Okanagan group, but has a capitalist ethos that Ayn Rand might think was a bit extreme.

    The worst places for First Nation/aboriginal social outcomes are Saskatchewan and Manitoba, which are heavily Cree, so I expect the Cree would do worse-than-average.

    Replies: @Sandgroper

  78. @Jtgw
    @Pithlord

    Absolutely no objection to this. It's great that our political and economic system allows rich people like Ron to create alternative media sources. This is how we fight PC, by using the Internet to debunk it.

    Replies: @asdf

    1) If PC ever decides to come down on Ron you can’t do anything to stop it. If this ever becomes more then a newsletter for a tiny portion of society that is what will happen. Look what happens to mainstream journalists who question PC.

    2) Other then an internet circle jerk sites like this do little. It has had zero effect on society, which has only gotten more PC. Nobody here would talk about this site at work or amongst friends for fear of what would happen, which means it will only ever be a fringe outlet for a small part of the population.

    • Replies: @Pithlord
    @asdf

    asdf,

    I think you are mostly engaged in a self-pity fest about non-existent persecution.

    American society is no doubt more tolerant of homosexuality than it used to be, but it is hardly uniformly "PC". Obviously, any society has to have social mores, and blue America's social mores might be described as PC, but equally obviously there is plenty of right-wing media, and it has more influence than it did back in the days of network TV and big city newspapers. Moreover, half the country isn't blue America.

    Paleocons are a minority among right-wing Americans, who generally love Israel and invading places, but it would be weird to describe mainstream American conservatism as "PC".

    Replies: @asdf

  79. @Sandgroper
    @Pithlord

    Not Cree then. Flatheads?

    Replies: @Pithlord

    My guess is that “Cup of Soup” is referring to the Westbank First Nation, which is part of the Okanagan group, but has a capitalist ethos that Ayn Rand might think was a bit extreme.

    The worst places for First Nation/aboriginal social outcomes are Saskatchewan and Manitoba, which are heavily Cree, so I expect the Cree would do worse-than-average.

    • Replies: @Sandgroper
    @Pithlord

    That might explain why Buffy Sainte-Marie chooses to live on Kauai. Mind you, if I had a choice, I might choose to live there too.

  80. @asdf
    @Jtgw

    1) If PC ever decides to come down on Ron you can't do anything to stop it. If this ever becomes more then a newsletter for a tiny portion of society that is what will happen. Look what happens to mainstream journalists who question PC.

    2) Other then an internet circle jerk sites like this do little. It has had zero effect on society, which has only gotten more PC. Nobody here would talk about this site at work or amongst friends for fear of what would happen, which means it will only ever be a fringe outlet for a small part of the population.

    Replies: @Pithlord

    asdf,

    I think you are mostly engaged in a self-pity fest about non-existent persecution.

    American society is no doubt more tolerant of homosexuality than it used to be, but it is hardly uniformly “PC”. Obviously, any society has to have social mores, and blue America’s social mores might be described as PC, but equally obviously there is plenty of right-wing media, and it has more influence than it did back in the days of network TV and big city newspapers. Moreover, half the country isn’t blue America.

    Paleocons are a minority among right-wing Americans, who generally love Israel and invading places, but it would be weird to describe mainstream American conservatism as “PC”.

    • Replies: @asdf
    @Pithlord

    https://handleshaus.wordpress.com/2013/12/26/bullied-and-badgered-pressured-and-purged/

    Non-existent persecution?

    Replies: @Pithlord, @Robert Ford, @jtgw, @Robert Ford

  81. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/13/opinion/god-gays-and-the-atlanta-fire-department.html?_r=2

    Until last week, Kelvin Cochran was the chief of the Atlanta fire department, where he oversaw a work force of more than 1,000 firefighters and staff.

    Mr. Cochran, a veteran firefighter, is also a deeply religious man, and he was eager to bring his Christian faith into the daily functioning of his department — or, as he put it in a book he authored in 2013, to “cultivate its culture to the glory of God.”

    But, as the book revealed, his religious beliefs also include virulent anti-gay views. He was fired on Jan. 6 by Atlanta’s mayor, Kasim Reed, for homophobic language in the book, “Who Told You That You Were Naked?” Among other things, he called homosexuality a “perversion,” compared it to bestiality and pedophilia, and said homosexual acts are “vile, vulgar and inappropriate.”

    Cue up the outraged claims that Mr. Cochran’s rights to free speech and religious freedom have been violated — an assertion that is as wrong as it was predictable.

    It should not matter that the investigation found no evidence that Mr. Cochran had mistreated gays or lesbians. His position as a high-level public servant makes his remarks especially problematic, and requires that he be held to a different standard.

    This is a war. Your opponent doesn’t follow the rules, whether you follow them or not.

    • Replies: @Robert Ford
    @asdf

    the last paragraph explains why what he was doing wasn't acceptable. that's just normal work rules. you can still run a Country Club that doesn't allow women, etc.

  82. @asdf
    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/13/opinion/god-gays-and-the-atlanta-fire-department.html?_r=2


    Until last week, Kelvin Cochran was the chief of the Atlanta fire department, where he oversaw a work force of more than 1,000 firefighters and staff.

    Mr. Cochran, a veteran firefighter, is also a deeply religious man, and he was eager to bring his Christian faith into the daily functioning of his department — or, as he put it in a book he authored in 2013, to “cultivate its culture to the glory of God.”

    But, as the book revealed, his religious beliefs also include virulent anti-gay views. He was fired on Jan. 6 by Atlanta’s mayor, Kasim Reed, for homophobic language in the book, “Who Told You That You Were Naked?” Among other things, he called homosexuality a “perversion,” compared it to bestiality and pedophilia, and said homosexual acts are “vile, vulgar and inappropriate.”

    ...

    Cue up the outraged claims that Mr. Cochran’s rights to free speech and religious freedom have been violated — an assertion that is as wrong as it was predictable.

    ...

    It should not matter that the investigation found no evidence that Mr. Cochran had mistreated gays or lesbians. His position as a high-level public servant makes his remarks especially problematic, and requires that he be held to a different standard.

     

    This is a war. Your opponent doesn't follow the rules, whether you follow them or not.

    Replies: @Robert Ford

    the last paragraph explains why what he was doing wasn’t acceptable. that’s just normal work rules. you can still run a Country Club that doesn’t allow women, etc.

  83. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @CupOfCanada
    @Razib Khan


    #57, i don’t give a shit if you or anyone else finds them offensive.

     

    Good. Neither do I. There's no right to not be offended. If I find something offensive, my recourse is to not buy the damned thing.

    i do find it offensive though if you tell me what is, or isn’t, offensive or against the islamic religion, as the poster above did, as if it matters, and as if you know.
     
    That's fair, and the post sanctimonious for sure.

    I find the cartoon of a black politician drawn as a monkey offensive.
     
    Not aware of the context, just the image. Nor am I inclined to delve deeper into Charlie Hedbo's form of satire. Just not my cup of tea.

    so not to put words into your mouth, are you defending that “full retard” post?
     
    The first part I am at least. I don't think last week's tragedy obligates me to approve of the work at the publication, and as annoying is this guy's post is, from my standpoint at least I assure you the "je suis Charlie" stuff is just as annoying.

    From your post:

    The reality here is that a certain element of the far cultural Left is really only interested in persuading everyone else on the Left. There’s no attempt to communicate with someone who doesn’t already share their values/axioms/priors.
     
    Thing is, Charlie Hedbo belongs to that same part of the cultural left. You're articulating quite well precisely what bothers me about their work, or at least what of their work I've seen.

    This is an aside, but just keep in mind that in the French context, the push to conform to cultural norms with respect to dress and religious observance comes as much from the left as the right. I'm a pretty secular guy in my worldview (private faith notwithstanding), but trying impose a forced secularism on people seems pretty abhorrent. If the sight of some dude in a kippah or turban or some chick in a headscarf bothers you, then that's your problem. This exact attitude is what bothers me about them. It's the same attitude that had the (ostensibly left wing) Party Quebecois bring forward a charter of "laïcité" (secularism) that would have banned the person cleaning the giant crucifix on top of Mount Royal from wearing a turban.

    I realize you're a critic of multiculturalism (though I think you and I may differ in our definition of it), but the fact is that the laissez faire Anglo-Saxon brand of multiculturalism has had far more success at integrating immigrants into society than the French brand of trying (and failing) to shove conformity down people's throats. I don't think people should be encouraged to maintain attitudes contrary to broader society, but it seems like the more you try to force people to conform, the more you isolate them and the less they actually integrate into society.

    On a different note though - have you read the Al-Khudhair paper that Davidski just blogged about? I'd be interested in your thoughts.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    Not aware of the context, just the image. Nor am I inclined to delve deeper into Charlie Hedbo’s form of satire. Just not my cup of tea.

    Had you condescended to delve into the context, you might have realized that the satire was wholly anti-racist (a full explanation is given at http://www.understandingcharliehebdo.com/#bleue-racist). How can you know whether or not a form of satire is “your cup of tea” if you don’t understand its context or the points it’s making?
    My own cup of tea is anti-racist satire, especially when it throws the racist iconography of right-wing organizations back in their faces, as that Charlie Hebdo cartoon did. It’s sad that much of the CH grave-pissing turned out to be as misguided as the “Cancel Colbert” kerfuffle.

    • Replies: @CupOfCanada
    @Anonymous

    That one cartoon doesn't change my opinion of the others. Nor am I left wing. Racism isn't all that particular to the right here either.

    My fundamental issue is that they are talking at people, not persuading.

    Replies: @omarali50

  84. Looking at the article again, as asdf points out, the fire chief may well have stepped over the line when he was distributing his book to employees. He really should have kept these views out of the workplace.

  85. @Pithlord
    @Sandgroper

    My guess is that "Cup of Soup" is referring to the Westbank First Nation, which is part of the Okanagan group, but has a capitalist ethos that Ayn Rand might think was a bit extreme.

    The worst places for First Nation/aboriginal social outcomes are Saskatchewan and Manitoba, which are heavily Cree, so I expect the Cree would do worse-than-average.

    Replies: @Sandgroper

    That might explain why Buffy Sainte-Marie chooses to live on Kauai. Mind you, if I had a choice, I might choose to live there too.

  86. @Sandgroper
    @CupOfCanada

    Not that I have delved much into Canadian First Nations, but I see some parallels with Australian Aboriginal people living in remote communities. Not to over-generalise, though, because this is comparing people on the cusp of the Neolithic revolution with people who were still living in the Pleistocene, with possibly a bit of imported and adopted culture within the past 5,000 years along with a bit of admixture and some dogs. But as you were listing the issues, I was ticking the boxes, and in Australia we are talking about people with a mean IQ of 65.

    I'm very curious to know who the most successful group are. I'm guessing Cree, but it's just a guess. But that would have to be some sub-group of the Cree, no?

    Replies: @CupOfCanada

    is referring to the Westbank Band, which is of Salish extraction – so related to the Flathead. They’re located in the suburbs of Kelowna. Beautiful area – it’s a major wine producing and tourist region, with hot dry summers, warm sandy beeches, and a cool deep lake to cool off in. The specific group I was referring to is one of the Salish bands in the suburbs of Vancouver, but the Westbank certainly qualify as extremely successful. The band located to the south of Kelowna (the Osoyoos) is a pretty impressive success story too. The band has 400 members, and the band owned businesses employ 4,000 people. So yes, very entrepreneurial. First Nations in BC also tend to vote more conservatively for whatever reason.

    From my standpoint, it seems that First Nations reserves that are most likely to have “good” living conditions tend to be located in British Columbia, not covered by any treaty signed in the 19th-early 20th century (“numbered treaties” – only British Columbia wasn’t significantly included in these treaties), and located in urban and suburban areas. But there are huge exceptions to this in both directions – that study on diabetes found rates differed by a factor of two between two neighbouring bands of the same tribe located in similar environments. So even keeping cultural and political factors constant there’s a huge amount of variation.

    A lot of the Cree seem to have gotten bad luck by 1) being located in less than ideal land (mostly swamps and permafrost) and 2) having all signed treaties in the 19th-early 20th century. Those treaties, while intended to guarantee certain rights and privileges to aboriginal peoples in Canada, seem to also constrain them. I think makes a good point that since at least the 1970s, the Canadian government’s intentions towards aboriginal people have been positive. I think that a lot of well intended policies are actually having a pretty negative impact (the lack of property rights being one of them). Some people, particularly on the left, claim that the collective ownership of land on reserves protects the people their from having their homes bought up by hypothetical predatory speculators. From my standpoint, the policies of collectivization seem to have had pretty disastrous consequences in the rest of the world, so I don’t see why it would be any different for Canadian aboriginal people. I don’t think private ownership should be rammed down any First Nation’s throat, but to not even have the option due to some 150 year old treaty?

    I do think there is one very plausible genetic link, though not the one most people would expect – metabolism. First Nations in Canada are at very high risk to develop diabetes, and while the Inuit are an extreme example of this, I don’t think it’s a stretch to suggest that there may have been some adaptations both in Siberia and North America to reflect the availability of different food sources in a cold climate. There is an absolute epidemic of diabetes among First Nations mothers, and particularly when not treated properly this has been correlated with high rates of macrosomia as well (though I’d note that in Australian aboriginal people macrosomia does not have the same association). Rodrigues et al (2000) has a good overview of the overall prevalence, and there are quite a few studies that show children born to diabetic mothers have lower education outcomes and increased risk of hyperactivity. There’s been quite a few studies that have found genetic risk factors specific to Native Americans for type 2 diabetes too. So I think it’s plausible that a lot of First Nations kids are being dealt a shitty hand from before birth. And it really doesn’t help that a single head of cabbage can cost $30 in some of these remote places.

    That 64 IQ number is from Richard Lynn isn’t it? I thought he was pretty thoroughly debunked for poor methodology (like using test scores from a Spanish school for the disabled as his “sample” for Equatorial Guinea). I thought this paper was pretty interesting: http://cbe.anu.edu.au/research/papers/ceprdpapers/dp578.pdf They found that when you controlled for socioeconomic factors, the test score gap between aboriginal and non-aboriginal children was reduced to 0.5 standard deviations. They fail to mention that the correlation is no longer statistically significant (though to be fair it’s pretty close to the p<10% level), but even if the correlation is real, I'm not very convinced that this is due to something fundamentally wrong with aboriginal people. It could be due to something unique and different that society is failing to address.

    Re: the Neolithic – some Inuit groups were even working with copper. Farming was just pretty much impossible where they lived. I find it a bit offensive (sorry Razib) the way groups like PETA judge the Inuit for their way of life. What are they supposed to do except hunt seals? PETA claims they don’t target the Inuit seal hunt, but their activism sure has been effective at destroying the market for seal fur. Now the Inuit can only use the seal hunt for subsistence. To paraphrase Inuit throat singer Tanya Tagaq, fuck PETA, and people shout eat and wear as much seal as possible.

    But yah… I really don’t think it should surprise people that those who experience the most government intervention in their lives have a bad time.

    • Replies: @Pithlord
    @CupOfCanada

    Institutions matter, as history's RCTs of North/South Korea and East/West Germany show. So, yeah, general Canadian society is based on property rights and non-familial governance, so it works better than most reserves, which are based on collective property and extended family nepotism. When my Scottish ancestors had similar governance structures, their lives were poor, nasty, brutish and short (but not solitary).

    The BC chiefs and the Harper government recently tried to reform the truly-awful reserve schools, and the Prairie chiefs stopped them. The differences between the unreformed reserve schools and the better BC one is equal to half the difference between aboriginals and Metis, so this is a big deal. The Liberals and NDP naturally supported the Prairie chiefs because we definitely don't have enough functional illiteracy among aboriginal people.

    Genes might matter too, though. Everybody agrees that eighteenth/nineteenth century lack of disease resistance was pretty decisive. You accept that former hunter-gatherers are going to be particularly prone to obesity and diabetes when faced with unlimited carbohydrates. It seems to me that the evidence is pretty overwhelming that high levels of substance abuse in aboriginal communities must have some genetic basis. Sailer's hypothesis that natural selection reduced the propensity to alcoholism most in populations that have had the longest access to alcohol has a pretty straightforward Darwinian logic. And alcoholism is highly heritable. AFAIK, this is still speculation, but it is hard speculation to resist.

  87. Not aware of the context, just the image. Nor am I inclined to delve deeper into Charlie Hedbo’s form of satire. Just not my cup of tea.

    this reminds of the moronic muslim rioters in india years ago who burned down a newspaper headquarters which had published the headline “muhammed is a criminal.” the context is that muhammed was a local criminal with the name muhammed, but the mob didn’t bother to read under the headline.

    the context of the image is that the author was making fun the National Front, which is obvious to people in france. it’s fine that you get offended, but something is only racist depending on the context. e.g., the nigerian author who was totally confused why images of black people eating watermelons is racist. there’s nothing intrinsically racist about anything. to assume that that image was racist in intent is totally stupid, but a lot of progtards were retweeting the ignorant max blumenthal tweet without understanding the rather transparent semiotics.

    you’re fine to be offended. but your embrace of not even understanding french culture to attempt to see what the satirists attempted is pretty embarrassing. i am not a big fan of many ideologies, but i actually attempt to understand their own internal logic before passing judgment..

    • Replies: @CupOfCanada
    @Razib Khan


    you’re fine to be offended. but your embrace of not even understanding french culture to attempt to see what the satirists attempted is pretty embarrassing. i am not a big fan of many ideologies, but i actually attempt to understand their own internal logic before passing judgment..
     
    With due respect, I'm pretty familiar with French culture. Much of the news I read is in French. Je suis anglophone, mais quand même mon français n'est pas terrible. I understand the brand of anti-clericalism that many quarters in France espouse, and I appreciate and am sympathetic to its historic origins. I just don't agree with it. I don't want any sort of religion imposed on anyone, but I don't think there's anything wrong with voluntary public displays of it either. I think diversity is something to be celebrated, not suppressed.

    I may have misunderstood the context of a black woman being portrayed as a monkey. That's my mistake, and I apologize. I doubt I misunderstood the context of the cartoon of Jesus fucking God in the ass.

    @omar - I hope that adequately answers your comment too.

    Forget Hebdo (whose shtick was indeed MEANT to be offensive and gross on many an occasion), this standard will pretty much kill everyone, everywhere, who draws cartoons or writes satire.
     
    That's my issue is all. I'm not a fan of being offensive for the sake of being offensive. I don't find their work particularly funny, at least from what I've seen. I appreciate breaking taboos and using humour and satire to make a point, but this feels as much like polemic to me as anything.

    the nigerian author who was totally confused why images of black people eating watermelons is racist.
     
    Frankly this confuses me too. I realize there's a stereotype, but watermelons are delicious. I'd be more concerned about someone who hates watermelons than someone who loves them.

    @Pithlord - I agree with the Liberals on this one (not surprising since I'm a member of that political party). I think the reforms have a lot of merit, but I don't think they should be imposed from above. Perhaps some sort of an opt in could have been used. I don't think you can try to impose this from above, or try to use one policy to suit 700+ different nations.

    It may reassure you to know that the Liberals went out of their way to recruit Jody Wilson-Raybould to run for them in Vancouver Granville though. She's a regional chief for the BC Assembly of First Nations and a former criminal prosecutor. So I think you can reasonably expect the Liberals to follow a "BC approach."

    I don't think the Conservatives have done a bad job at trying to reach out to aboriginal people though. If I'm not mistaken, most MPs of aboriginal descent in Parliament right now are Conservatives.

    Re: alcohol, I was going to use that example too, but had a hard time find good sources. Obviously there's a strong environmental factor too, but yah, there were pretty important health reasons to want to be able to tolerate alcohol in large parts of the world historically. Obviously no one is well adapted to a Western diet or lifestyle (as the diabetes and alcoholism rates in my family can attest), but I don't think it's hard to believe that there's a lot of variation on the relative rates between groups. One of the areas were local First Nations have been given greater autonomy when they convert to municipal governments is the authority to ban alcohol sales in their jurisdiction. So I think there's a recognition that this is an issue among First Nations leaders too.

    Replies: @Pithlord

  88. @Anonymous
    @CupOfCanada


    Not aware of the context, just the image. Nor am I inclined to delve deeper into Charlie Hedbo’s form of satire. Just not my cup of tea.
     
    Had you condescended to delve into the context, you might have realized that the satire was wholly anti-racist (a full explanation is given at http://www.understandingcharliehebdo.com/#bleue-racist). How can you know whether or not a form of satire is "your cup of tea" if you don't understand its context or the points it's making?
    My own cup of tea is anti-racist satire, especially when it throws the racist iconography of right-wing organizations back in their faces, as that Charlie Hebdo cartoon did. It's sad that much of the CH grave-pissing turned out to be as misguided as the "Cancel Colbert" kerfuffle.

    Replies: @CupOfCanada

    That one cartoon doesn’t change my opinion of the others. Nor am I left wing. Racism isn’t all that particular to the right here either.

    My fundamental issue is that they are talking at people, not persuading.

    • Replies: @omarali50
    @CupOfCanada

    Bro, I realize how hard it is to back away from a public position one has taken, but really, you are just digging yourself in deeper.
    I am too busy, but I am sure you can find thousands of progressive, approved cartoons, articles, blog posts etc that are "talking at people, not persuading". Or at least, that is how it looks to the people they don't approve of.
    This is not a standard you can reasonably apply to a satirical magazine. Forget Hebdo (whose shtick was indeed MEANT to be offensive and gross on many an occasion), this standard will pretty much kill everyone, everywhere, who draws cartoons or writes satire.

  89. @CupOfCanada
    @Anonymous

    That one cartoon doesn't change my opinion of the others. Nor am I left wing. Racism isn't all that particular to the right here either.

    My fundamental issue is that they are talking at people, not persuading.

    Replies: @omarali50

    Bro, I realize how hard it is to back away from a public position one has taken, but really, you are just digging yourself in deeper.
    I am too busy, but I am sure you can find thousands of progressive, approved cartoons, articles, blog posts etc that are “talking at people, not persuading”. Or at least, that is how it looks to the people they don’t approve of.
    This is not a standard you can reasonably apply to a satirical magazine. Forget Hebdo (whose shtick was indeed MEANT to be offensive and gross on many an occasion), this standard will pretty much kill everyone, everywhere, who draws cartoons or writes satire.

  90. @CupOfCanada
    @Sandgroper

    @Pithlord is referring to the Westbank Band, which is of Salish extraction - so related to the Flathead. They're located in the suburbs of Kelowna. Beautiful area - it's a major wine producing and tourist region, with hot dry summers, warm sandy beeches, and a cool deep lake to cool off in. The specific group I was referring to is one of the Salish bands in the suburbs of Vancouver, but the Westbank certainly qualify as extremely successful. The band located to the south of Kelowna (the Osoyoos) is a pretty impressive success story too. The band has 400 members, and the band owned businesses employ 4,000 people. So yes, very entrepreneurial. First Nations in BC also tend to vote more conservatively for whatever reason.

    From my standpoint, it seems that First Nations reserves that are most likely to have "good" living conditions tend to be located in British Columbia, not covered by any treaty signed in the 19th-early 20th century ("numbered treaties" - only British Columbia wasn't significantly included in these treaties), and located in urban and suburban areas. But there are huge exceptions to this in both directions - that study on diabetes found rates differed by a factor of two between two neighbouring bands of the same tribe located in similar environments. So even keeping cultural and political factors constant there's a huge amount of variation.

    A lot of the Cree seem to have gotten bad luck by 1) being located in less than ideal land (mostly swamps and permafrost) and 2) having all signed treaties in the 19th-early 20th century. Those treaties, while intended to guarantee certain rights and privileges to aboriginal peoples in Canada, seem to also constrain them. I think @Pithlord makes a good point that since at least the 1970s, the Canadian government's intentions towards aboriginal people have been positive. I think that a lot of well intended policies are actually having a pretty negative impact (the lack of property rights being one of them). Some people, particularly on the left, claim that the collective ownership of land on reserves protects the people their from having their homes bought up by hypothetical predatory speculators. From my standpoint, the policies of collectivization seem to have had pretty disastrous consequences in the rest of the world, so I don't see why it would be any different for Canadian aboriginal people. I don't think private ownership should be rammed down any First Nation's throat, but to not even have the option due to some 150 year old treaty?

    I do think there is one very plausible genetic link, though not the one most people would expect - metabolism. First Nations in Canada are at very high risk to develop diabetes, and while the Inuit are an extreme example of this, I don't think it's a stretch to suggest that there may have been some adaptations both in Siberia and North America to reflect the availability of different food sources in a cold climate. There is an absolute epidemic of diabetes among First Nations mothers, and particularly when not treated properly this has been correlated with high rates of macrosomia as well (though I'd note that in Australian aboriginal people macrosomia does not have the same association). Rodrigues et al (2000) has a good overview of the overall prevalence, and there are quite a few studies that show children born to diabetic mothers have lower education outcomes and increased risk of hyperactivity. There's been quite a few studies that have found genetic risk factors specific to Native Americans for type 2 diabetes too. So I think it's plausible that a lot of First Nations kids are being dealt a shitty hand from before birth. And it really doesn't help that a single head of cabbage can cost $30 in some of these remote places.

    That 64 IQ number is from Richard Lynn isn't it? I thought he was pretty thoroughly debunked for poor methodology (like using test scores from a Spanish school for the disabled as his "sample" for Equatorial Guinea). I thought this paper was pretty interesting: http://cbe.anu.edu.au/research/papers/ceprdpapers/dp578.pdf They found that when you controlled for socioeconomic factors, the test score gap between aboriginal and non-aboriginal children was reduced to 0.5 standard deviations. They fail to mention that the correlation is no longer statistically significant (though to be fair it's pretty close to the p<10% level), but even if the correlation is real, I'm not very convinced that this is due to something fundamentally wrong with aboriginal people. It could be due to something unique and different that society is failing to address.

    Re: the Neolithic - some Inuit groups were even working with copper. Farming was just pretty much impossible where they lived. I find it a bit offensive (sorry Razib) the way groups like PETA judge the Inuit for their way of life. What are they supposed to do except hunt seals? PETA claims they don't target the Inuit seal hunt, but their activism sure has been effective at destroying the market for seal fur. Now the Inuit can only use the seal hunt for subsistence. To paraphrase Inuit throat singer Tanya Tagaq, fuck PETA, and people shout eat and wear as much seal as possible.

    But yah... I really don't think it should surprise people that those who experience the most government intervention in their lives have a bad time.

    Replies: @Pithlord

    Institutions matter, as history’s RCTs of North/South Korea and East/West Germany show. So, yeah, general Canadian society is based on property rights and non-familial governance, so it works better than most reserves, which are based on collective property and extended family nepotism. When my Scottish ancestors had similar governance structures, their lives were poor, nasty, brutish and short (but not solitary).

    The BC chiefs and the Harper government recently tried to reform the truly-awful reserve schools, and the Prairie chiefs stopped them. The differences between the unreformed reserve schools and the better BC one is equal to half the difference between aboriginals and Metis, so this is a big deal. The Liberals and NDP naturally supported the Prairie chiefs because we definitely don’t have enough functional illiteracy among aboriginal people.

    Genes might matter too, though. Everybody agrees that eighteenth/nineteenth century lack of disease resistance was pretty decisive. You accept that former hunter-gatherers are going to be particularly prone to obesity and diabetes when faced with unlimited carbohydrates. It seems to me that the evidence is pretty overwhelming that high levels of substance abuse in aboriginal communities must have some genetic basis. Sailer’s hypothesis that natural selection reduced the propensity to alcoholism most in populations that have had the longest access to alcohol has a pretty straightforward Darwinian logic. And alcoholism is highly heritable. AFAIK, this is still speculation, but it is hard speculation to resist.

  91. @Pithlord
    @asdf

    asdf,

    I think you are mostly engaged in a self-pity fest about non-existent persecution.

    American society is no doubt more tolerant of homosexuality than it used to be, but it is hardly uniformly "PC". Obviously, any society has to have social mores, and blue America's social mores might be described as PC, but equally obviously there is plenty of right-wing media, and it has more influence than it did back in the days of network TV and big city newspapers. Moreover, half the country isn't blue America.

    Paleocons are a minority among right-wing Americans, who generally love Israel and invading places, but it would be weird to describe mainstream American conservatism as "PC".

    Replies: @asdf

    • Replies: @Pithlord
    @asdf

    That's a real grab bag of events. A few of them count as persecution, perhaps, but some really aren't.

    On Doug Christie, his 2007 discipline by the Law Society was (a) a slap on the wrist, and (b) had nothing to do with his politics or who he represented. That makes me question a lot of the other items. Many of them are about highly-ideological periodicals no longer employing ("purging") writers they don't agree with. Other examples I would agree are PC abuses. The writer includes some of the "patriotic correctness" that got really bad during the Bush years, which I think is a bit different from leftist political correctness.

    , @Robert Ford
    @asdf

    Again, a lot of those are just businesses exercising their right to fire people. It sucks and it's stupid but it's their right. It's not the same as the Saudis sentencing that guy to lashings yesterday for starting a discussion forum.

    , @jtgw
    @asdf

    The vast majority of those cases don't involve real persecution. I would count only those cases where someone was punished by the state for expressing their opinions. If they were merely disciplined or dismissed by their employers, that's just life, sorry to say. A right to free speech does not include a right to say anything that embarrasses the one who pays your bills without suffering the consequences. If you want to say what you want and keep your job, you need to be self-employed. As I said, it's just reality that certain opinions at certain times and places will be socially and culturally taboo; you can always expect to face consequences in the private sphere for violating those taboos, and you have no right to demand protection from the state against those consequences, provided they are non-violent. The advantage of a liberal society is that the state itself refrains from attacking you for expressing your beliefs, and is also committed to defending your life, freedom and property against others who disagree with you. However, these do not include the right to a permanent job with your current employer. So let's not throw around that debased term "persecution" so much, OK?

    , @Robert Ford
    @asdf

    what we're trying to get through is that if those companies were not allowed to fire them, even if the reasoning isn't coherent or is influenced by SJWs, then the State *would* be doing the very thing you're complaining about: infringing upon the rights of that business.

    Replies: @asdf

  92. Were the CH crew just happy irreverent scamps, or militant combatants who have a side?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11346641/Charlie-Hebdo-founder-says-slain-editor-dragged-team-to-their-deaths.html

    “This is not the first time Delfeil has disagreed with the modern Charlie, accusing Charb’s predecessor of turning it into a Zionist and Islamophobic organ.

    That was after Philippe Val, the previous editor, fired one of its historic figures, Maurice Sine, for publishing a cartoon on the marriage of Nicolas Sarkozy’s son, Jean, to a Jewish retailing heiress, which he considered anti-Semitic.

    Delfeil said he would not say anymore on recent events. “I have refused to speak to the TV and radio, to everyone. I kept my message for Obs, and I am not prepared to open this subject again,” he said.”

    How I created cover for Charlie Hebdo’s survivors’ edition cover: cartoonist Luz’s statement in full

  93. @asdf
    @Pithlord

    https://handleshaus.wordpress.com/2013/12/26/bullied-and-badgered-pressured-and-purged/

    Non-existent persecution?

    Replies: @Pithlord, @Robert Ford, @jtgw, @Robert Ford

    That’s a real grab bag of events. A few of them count as persecution, perhaps, but some really aren’t.

    On Doug Christie, his 2007 discipline by the Law Society was (a) a slap on the wrist, and (b) had nothing to do with his politics or who he represented. That makes me question a lot of the other items. Many of them are about highly-ideological periodicals no longer employing (“purging”) writers they don’t agree with. Other examples I would agree are PC abuses. The writer includes some of the “patriotic correctness” that got really bad during the Bush years, which I think is a bit different from leftist political correctness.

  94. @asdf
    @Pithlord

    https://handleshaus.wordpress.com/2013/12/26/bullied-and-badgered-pressured-and-purged/

    Non-existent persecution?

    Replies: @Pithlord, @Robert Ford, @jtgw, @Robert Ford

    Again, a lot of those are just businesses exercising their right to fire people. It sucks and it’s stupid but it’s their right. It’s not the same as the Saudis sentencing that guy to lashings yesterday for starting a discussion forum.

  95. @asdf
    @Pithlord

    https://handleshaus.wordpress.com/2013/12/26/bullied-and-badgered-pressured-and-purged/

    Non-existent persecution?

    Replies: @Pithlord, @Robert Ford, @jtgw, @Robert Ford

    The vast majority of those cases don’t involve real persecution. I would count only those cases where someone was punished by the state for expressing their opinions. If they were merely disciplined or dismissed by their employers, that’s just life, sorry to say. A right to free speech does not include a right to say anything that embarrasses the one who pays your bills without suffering the consequences. If you want to say what you want and keep your job, you need to be self-employed. As I said, it’s just reality that certain opinions at certain times and places will be socially and culturally taboo; you can always expect to face consequences in the private sphere for violating those taboos, and you have no right to demand protection from the state against those consequences, provided they are non-violent. The advantage of a liberal society is that the state itself refrains from attacking you for expressing your beliefs, and is also committed to defending your life, freedom and property against others who disagree with you. However, these do not include the right to a permanent job with your current employer. So let’s not throw around that debased term “persecution” so much, OK?

  96. @Razib Khan
    #57, i don't give a shit if you or anyone else finds them offensive. i do find it offensive though if you tell me what is, or isn't, offensive or against the islamic religion, as the poster above did, as if it matters, and as if you know.

    I find the cartoon of a black politician drawn as a monkey offensive.

    i'm assuming you didn't go full retard here, and know the anti-racist context for this specific? (with all due respect)

    also, the post i'm linking to has a lot of straight out lies in it. e.g., he claims that the cartoonists were all white. that's a lie. you can check the obits for that, at least one guy was algerian, and there were other non-whites in the editorial room.

    so not to put words into your mouth, are you defending that "full retard" post?

    Replies: @CupOfCanada, @Kothiru

    I’d also like to add that drawing a black person as a monkey in France is not considered racist as it is in N.A., it’s seen as no different as drawing any person as a monkey. Leftists don’t consider cultural context, and think they can apply their own context universally.

  97. @asdf
    @Pithlord

    https://handleshaus.wordpress.com/2013/12/26/bullied-and-badgered-pressured-and-purged/

    Non-existent persecution?

    Replies: @Pithlord, @Robert Ford, @jtgw, @Robert Ford

    what we’re trying to get through is that if those companies were not allowed to fire them, even if the reasoning isn’t coherent or is influenced by SJWs, then the State *would* be doing the very thing you’re complaining about: infringing upon the rights of that business.

    • Replies: @asdf
    @Robert Ford

    What you don't seem to understand is that free speech isn't a law on the books of a state, but a cultural attitude that permeates throughout society. You can't expect a law nobody believes in to hold up over the long run, either explicitly because the polity will change it (hate speech laws) or implicitly by finding ways around it in the private sphere.

    Let's examine what you are proposing. You want a society in which anyone that challenges progressive orthodoxy is ruthlessly purged. Where the consequences are so great only a few powerless fringe elements will speak the truth. As more people see what happened to those that resisted they will join in so that they don't get run over. In addition they will import millions of people from cultures that have never embraced free speech and who bring those values with them. Anyone who questions this will also be purged. How long do you think that cultural and demographic ratchet can continue until they are so powerful they no longer even bother with free speech laws.

    Once you decide that "hate speech" is something someone ought to be fired over very few people will defend "hate speech". Predictable social forces will then increase the sphere of "hate speech" ever more, in fact questioning the idea that punishing people for "hate speech" will itself be "hate speech." Once nobody is willing to stand up to the concept and everyone jumps on the "hate speech" bandwagon either for personal gain or out of fear you'll have a polity who overwhelming wants to punish a huge sphere of "hate speech", do you really think such a situation won't result in the government getting in on that and providing people what they want?

    You can't separate private culture from public policy. They feed off each other. They are not some impenetrable Great Wall. If you lose the culture war you will lose the public policy war. If you don't want to lose the culture war then you need to consider what measures can be effective. Government protections of "hate speech" might stop the ratchet by letting people who know this is all insane stand up to the whole crazy movement with confidence.

  98. @Razib Khan
    Not aware of the context, just the image. Nor am I inclined to delve deeper into Charlie Hedbo’s form of satire. Just not my cup of tea.

    this reminds of the moronic muslim rioters in india years ago who burned down a newspaper headquarters which had published the headline "muhammed is a criminal." the context is that muhammed was a local criminal with the name muhammed, but the mob didn't bother to read under the headline.

    the context of the image is that the author was making fun the National Front, which is obvious to people in france. it's fine that you get offended, but something is only racist depending on the context. e.g., the nigerian author who was totally confused why images of black people eating watermelons is racist. there's nothing intrinsically racist about anything. to assume that that image was racist in intent is totally stupid, but a lot of progtards were retweeting the ignorant max blumenthal tweet without understanding the rather transparent semiotics.

    you're fine to be offended. but your embrace of not even understanding french culture to attempt to see what the satirists attempted is pretty embarrassing. i am not a big fan of many ideologies, but i actually attempt to understand their own internal logic before passing judgment..

    Replies: @CupOfCanada

    you’re fine to be offended. but your embrace of not even understanding french culture to attempt to see what the satirists attempted is pretty embarrassing. i am not a big fan of many ideologies, but i actually attempt to understand their own internal logic before passing judgment..

    With due respect, I’m pretty familiar with French culture. Much of the news I read is in French. Je suis anglophone, mais quand même mon français n’est pas terrible. I understand the brand of anti-clericalism that many quarters in France espouse, and I appreciate and am sympathetic to its historic origins. I just don’t agree with it. I don’t want any sort of religion imposed on anyone, but I don’t think there’s anything wrong with voluntary public displays of it either. I think diversity is something to be celebrated, not suppressed.

    I may have misunderstood the context of a black woman being portrayed as a monkey. That’s my mistake, and I apologize. I doubt I misunderstood the context of the cartoon of Jesus fucking God in the ass.

    @omar – I hope that adequately answers your comment too.

    Forget Hebdo (whose shtick was indeed MEANT to be offensive and gross on many an occasion), this standard will pretty much kill everyone, everywhere, who draws cartoons or writes satire.

    That’s my issue is all. I’m not a fan of being offensive for the sake of being offensive. I don’t find their work particularly funny, at least from what I’ve seen. I appreciate breaking taboos and using humour and satire to make a point, but this feels as much like polemic to me as anything.

    the nigerian author who was totally confused why images of black people eating watermelons is racist.

    Frankly this confuses me too. I realize there’s a stereotype, but watermelons are delicious. I’d be more concerned about someone who hates watermelons than someone who loves them.

    – I agree with the Liberals on this one (not surprising since I’m a member of that political party). I think the reforms have a lot of merit, but I don’t think they should be imposed from above. Perhaps some sort of an opt in could have been used. I don’t think you can try to impose this from above, or try to use one policy to suit 700+ different nations.

    It may reassure you to know that the Liberals went out of their way to recruit Jody Wilson-Raybould to run for them in Vancouver Granville though. She’s a regional chief for the BC Assembly of First Nations and a former criminal prosecutor. So I think you can reasonably expect the Liberals to follow a “BC approach.”

    I don’t think the Conservatives have done a bad job at trying to reach out to aboriginal people though. If I’m not mistaken, most MPs of aboriginal descent in Parliament right now are Conservatives.

    Re: alcohol, I was going to use that example too, but had a hard time find good sources. Obviously there’s a strong environmental factor too, but yah, there were pretty important health reasons to want to be able to tolerate alcohol in large parts of the world historically. Obviously no one is well adapted to a Western diet or lifestyle (as the diabetes and alcoholism rates in my family can attest), but I don’t think it’s hard to believe that there’s a lot of variation on the relative rates between groups. One of the areas were local First Nations have been given greater autonomy when they convert to municipal governments is the authority to ban alcohol sales in their jurisdiction. So I think there’s a recognition that this is an issue among First Nations leaders too.

    • Replies: @Pithlord
    @CupOfCanada

    It is a sad day when the once-mighty Liberal Party of Canada would come out against something because it is imposed from above. What happened to the spirit of mandatory French on cornflake boxes, forcing the elderly to use metric and Canadian content regulations in pornography? Obviously Justin is trying to generate a clean source of energy from the old man spinning in his grave.

    Seriously, though, I think this is moral cowardice, and a willingness to sacrifice an entire generation of young aboriginal people to permanent dependence on transfers. I don't really believe there is a way for public policy to close the education gap between aboriginal and non-aboriginal kids, but it should be possible to close some of the gap between aboriginal kids at reserve schools and aboriginal kids at provincial schools. Or just shut down the reserve schools and leave schooling to the provinces.

    Replies: @CupOfCanada

  99. @CupOfCanada
    @Razib Khan


    you’re fine to be offended. but your embrace of not even understanding french culture to attempt to see what the satirists attempted is pretty embarrassing. i am not a big fan of many ideologies, but i actually attempt to understand their own internal logic before passing judgment..
     
    With due respect, I'm pretty familiar with French culture. Much of the news I read is in French. Je suis anglophone, mais quand même mon français n'est pas terrible. I understand the brand of anti-clericalism that many quarters in France espouse, and I appreciate and am sympathetic to its historic origins. I just don't agree with it. I don't want any sort of religion imposed on anyone, but I don't think there's anything wrong with voluntary public displays of it either. I think diversity is something to be celebrated, not suppressed.

    I may have misunderstood the context of a black woman being portrayed as a monkey. That's my mistake, and I apologize. I doubt I misunderstood the context of the cartoon of Jesus fucking God in the ass.

    @omar - I hope that adequately answers your comment too.

    Forget Hebdo (whose shtick was indeed MEANT to be offensive and gross on many an occasion), this standard will pretty much kill everyone, everywhere, who draws cartoons or writes satire.
     
    That's my issue is all. I'm not a fan of being offensive for the sake of being offensive. I don't find their work particularly funny, at least from what I've seen. I appreciate breaking taboos and using humour and satire to make a point, but this feels as much like polemic to me as anything.

    the nigerian author who was totally confused why images of black people eating watermelons is racist.
     
    Frankly this confuses me too. I realize there's a stereotype, but watermelons are delicious. I'd be more concerned about someone who hates watermelons than someone who loves them.

    @Pithlord - I agree with the Liberals on this one (not surprising since I'm a member of that political party). I think the reforms have a lot of merit, but I don't think they should be imposed from above. Perhaps some sort of an opt in could have been used. I don't think you can try to impose this from above, or try to use one policy to suit 700+ different nations.

    It may reassure you to know that the Liberals went out of their way to recruit Jody Wilson-Raybould to run for them in Vancouver Granville though. She's a regional chief for the BC Assembly of First Nations and a former criminal prosecutor. So I think you can reasonably expect the Liberals to follow a "BC approach."

    I don't think the Conservatives have done a bad job at trying to reach out to aboriginal people though. If I'm not mistaken, most MPs of aboriginal descent in Parliament right now are Conservatives.

    Re: alcohol, I was going to use that example too, but had a hard time find good sources. Obviously there's a strong environmental factor too, but yah, there were pretty important health reasons to want to be able to tolerate alcohol in large parts of the world historically. Obviously no one is well adapted to a Western diet or lifestyle (as the diabetes and alcoholism rates in my family can attest), but I don't think it's hard to believe that there's a lot of variation on the relative rates between groups. One of the areas were local First Nations have been given greater autonomy when they convert to municipal governments is the authority to ban alcohol sales in their jurisdiction. So I think there's a recognition that this is an issue among First Nations leaders too.

    Replies: @Pithlord

    It is a sad day when the once-mighty Liberal Party of Canada would come out against something because it is imposed from above. What happened to the spirit of mandatory French on cornflake boxes, forcing the elderly to use metric and Canadian content regulations in pornography? Obviously Justin is trying to generate a clean source of energy from the old man spinning in his grave.

    Seriously, though, I think this is moral cowardice, and a willingness to sacrifice an entire generation of young aboriginal people to permanent dependence on transfers. I don’t really believe there is a way for public policy to close the education gap between aboriginal and non-aboriginal kids, but it should be possible to close some of the gap between aboriginal kids at reserve schools and aboriginal kids at provincial schools. Or just shut down the reserve schools and leave schooling to the provinces.

    • Replies: @CupOfCanada
    @Pithlord

    Well, the Conservatives withdrew it too once Atleo was toppled. I don't think it's cowardice so much as humility. Well-intentioned government paternalism has done a lot of damage to Canadian First Nations, and I think it shows wisdom on the part of all the major parties to be reluctant to repeat that error.

    Replies: @Pithlord

  100. @Pithlord
    @CupOfCanada

    It is a sad day when the once-mighty Liberal Party of Canada would come out against something because it is imposed from above. What happened to the spirit of mandatory French on cornflake boxes, forcing the elderly to use metric and Canadian content regulations in pornography? Obviously Justin is trying to generate a clean source of energy from the old man spinning in his grave.

    Seriously, though, I think this is moral cowardice, and a willingness to sacrifice an entire generation of young aboriginal people to permanent dependence on transfers. I don't really believe there is a way for public policy to close the education gap between aboriginal and non-aboriginal kids, but it should be possible to close some of the gap between aboriginal kids at reserve schools and aboriginal kids at provincial schools. Or just shut down the reserve schools and leave schooling to the provinces.

    Replies: @CupOfCanada

    Well, the Conservatives withdrew it too once Atleo was toppled. I don’t think it’s cowardice so much as humility. Well-intentioned government paternalism has done a lot of damage to Canadian First Nations, and I think it shows wisdom on the part of all the major parties to be reluctant to repeat that error.

    • Replies: @Pithlord
    @CupOfCanada

    I assume you agree that it is not "paternalist" (in a bad sense) to require your underage citizens to go to school.

    Reserve schools, as presently constituted, aren't schools if "school" implies that some learning occurs within.

    The fundamental question is therefore whether aboriginals living on reserve are citizens.

    I don't think you think they are. They are feudal vassals of the chiefs.

    Replies: @CupOfCanada

  101. @CupOfCanada
    @Pithlord

    Well, the Conservatives withdrew it too once Atleo was toppled. I don't think it's cowardice so much as humility. Well-intentioned government paternalism has done a lot of damage to Canadian First Nations, and I think it shows wisdom on the part of all the major parties to be reluctant to repeat that error.

    Replies: @Pithlord

    I assume you agree that it is not “paternalist” (in a bad sense) to require your underage citizens to go to school.

    Reserve schools, as presently constituted, aren’t schools if “school” implies that some learning occurs within.

    The fundamental question is therefore whether aboriginals living on reserve are citizens.

    I don’t think you think they are. They are feudal vassals of the chiefs.

    • Replies: @CupOfCanada
    @Pithlord


    I assume you agree that it is not “paternalist” (in a bad sense) to require your underage citizens to go to school.
     
    Generally no, though rounding children up and shipping them off to very poorly run boarding schools wasn't exactly Canada's finest moment either.

    Reserve schools, as presently constituted, aren’t schools if “school” implies that some learning occurs within.
     
    These schools are run by the federal government though. This is entirely a failing of successive governments, not of chiefs.

    The fundamental question is therefore whether aboriginals living on reserve are citizens.
     

    I don’t think you think they are. They are feudal vassals of the chiefs.
     
    Obviously I think they are citizens. Residential schools are a federal responsibility though, as noted above, so this blame does not lie with any chief. It's the federal government that funds on reserve schools at half the per student rate as a regular public school.
  102. I suspect that this is the attitude of the majority of the Muslims to Charlie Hebdo : http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ef4_1421306130. Al Azhar is I believe the oldest university there is.

    The only other comment , question really, is why would a grown up have a Facebook page at all ?

  103. @Robert Ford
    @asdf

    what we're trying to get through is that if those companies were not allowed to fire them, even if the reasoning isn't coherent or is influenced by SJWs, then the State *would* be doing the very thing you're complaining about: infringing upon the rights of that business.

    Replies: @asdf

    What you don’t seem to understand is that free speech isn’t a law on the books of a state, but a cultural attitude that permeates throughout society. You can’t expect a law nobody believes in to hold up over the long run, either explicitly because the polity will change it (hate speech laws) or implicitly by finding ways around it in the private sphere.

    Let’s examine what you are proposing. You want a society in which anyone that challenges progressive orthodoxy is ruthlessly purged. Where the consequences are so great only a few powerless fringe elements will speak the truth. As more people see what happened to those that resisted they will join in so that they don’t get run over. In addition they will import millions of people from cultures that have never embraced free speech and who bring those values with them. Anyone who questions this will also be purged. How long do you think that cultural and demographic ratchet can continue until they are so powerful they no longer even bother with free speech laws.

    Once you decide that “hate speech” is something someone ought to be fired over very few people will defend “hate speech”. Predictable social forces will then increase the sphere of “hate speech” ever more, in fact questioning the idea that punishing people for “hate speech” will itself be “hate speech.” Once nobody is willing to stand up to the concept and everyone jumps on the “hate speech” bandwagon either for personal gain or out of fear you’ll have a polity who overwhelming wants to punish a huge sphere of “hate speech”, do you really think such a situation won’t result in the government getting in on that and providing people what they want?

    You can’t separate private culture from public policy. They feed off each other. They are not some impenetrable Great Wall. If you lose the culture war you will lose the public policy war. If you don’t want to lose the culture war then you need to consider what measures can be effective. Government protections of “hate speech” might stop the ratchet by letting people who know this is all insane stand up to the whole crazy movement with confidence.

  104. @Pithlord
    @CupOfCanada

    I assume you agree that it is not "paternalist" (in a bad sense) to require your underage citizens to go to school.

    Reserve schools, as presently constituted, aren't schools if "school" implies that some learning occurs within.

    The fundamental question is therefore whether aboriginals living on reserve are citizens.

    I don't think you think they are. They are feudal vassals of the chiefs.

    Replies: @CupOfCanada

    I assume you agree that it is not “paternalist” (in a bad sense) to require your underage citizens to go to school.

    Generally no, though rounding children up and shipping them off to very poorly run boarding schools wasn’t exactly Canada’s finest moment either.

    Reserve schools, as presently constituted, aren’t schools if “school” implies that some learning occurs within.

    These schools are run by the federal government though. This is entirely a failing of successive governments, not of chiefs.

    The fundamental question is therefore whether aboriginals living on reserve are citizens.

    I don’t think you think they are. They are feudal vassals of the chiefs.

    Obviously I think they are citizens. Residential schools are a federal responsibility though, as noted above, so this blame does not lie with any chief. It’s the federal government that funds on reserve schools at half the per student rate as a regular public school.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Razib Khan Comments via RSS