I’m certain most have by now heard of the book recently published by former New York Times writer Nicholas Wade. In it he makes the apparently controversial claim that different races are different. This seems to be a topic about which semi-lucid men are capable of sententious debate. Though I can not produce rhetoric sufficiently florid to express its tedium. That our forebears accepted the input of their senses and we do not is hardly a premise upon which to crow of intellectual “progress.” Our greatest minds once focused on microcircuitry, aviation, engineering, and bio-technology. Now devolved to the banal depravity of arguing whether this is the same as that.
And instead of fashioning a societal paradigm premised on that sensory input, we now do so using a reportedly more objective metric: Raysis. Our, eyes, ears, logic, and intuition tells us that each race of people are imbued with a generally defined set of talents and temperaments. Raysis tells us that is impermissible. And so we contort our mind and alter perceptions to accommodate the only model we are permitted to embrace.
In reading commentary vehemently opposed to healthy mind-eye coordination, a couple of predictable themes emerge. These manifest as a function of which flank on the ASRS scale the leftist drone resides. For the pant-shitting hysterics, there is the “OMG” retort. This is essentially: “Who cares if race is real, do you know what the Triple Rs will do with this?”
A practically sober example of this could be found in a recent comment at another site:
I criticize Wade for not anticipating that commenters at Stormfront and apologists for the KKK would latch on to his efforts, as indeed they have.
You will note the problem with Wade’s book from this perspective is not its content, but who may quote it to their benefit. And if cancer could be cured, what if in doing so we aided members of the Right? A conundrum perhaps for the next Wachowski
brothers siblings movie. Though I wondered as to the principles of this commenter’s position, and so inquired:
Should writers also anticipate what black or jewish advocates will “latch on” and seek to diminish these points accordingly? After all, it seems likely that the AJC (motto: Global Jewish Advocacy) or NAACP might be attracted to revelations they find felicitous. And thus men of granite moral principles, such as yourself, would disavow these positions preemptively I presume.
I did not receive subsequent confirmation.
The opposing end of the autism scale features the extraordinarily clever rhetorical device that since race can not be precisely parsed down to its exact sub-atomic contours, that it…must not exist at all. As commenter Rob previously mentioned the term, this is spectrum analysis for which we simply have no answer.
Readers imagine that there are discrete identifiable frequency categories in the graphic above. They believe they are seeing “colors.” But what is the color at 420nm? 480? 500? 580? You can’t say for certain, can you? Check mate, bigot. There is no red, blue or green. And thus there are no races. #supportNAACP #supportLaRaza #supportAJC
Though frankly, learning the error of useful perceptions is quite disconcerting. And this is because we all must develop models for navigating the world around us out of necessity. Despite its flighty cosmic appeal, no human being has the time or ability to “judge a man by the content of his character.” We often learn previously unknown aspects of character for those closest to us years later. And yet we are supposed to perform this ludicrous evaluation for every interaction? It’s such an absurdity that America could do nothing else.
Should we be walking around this ghetto at night?
Well that question can’t be answered until we have determined the residents’ individual characters. Come on, let’s go quiz them!”
There are many other aspects of our lives that apparently fall prey to the faulty modeling sequences that have guided us through thousands of years of evolution and natural selection. In another comment, I sought counsel on a domestic concern.
What, if anything, is the difference between large aggressive dogs and more petite breeds? Is it genetic? Or is it that society has simply constructed differences of agreed upon perception that do not exist in any objective sense?
I ask only because I am sometimes trepidatious that my neighbor’s Rottweiler construct might detach my arm from trunk. So I would like for science to verify that this formidable beast is indistinguishable from a Pomeranian, thus rendering my misgivings entirely irrational.
At core this is the autistic claim contra Wade: where senses and intuition indicate danger, science finds only hapologroups. Over time, we should note which is more effective at keeping its adherents alive.