Political Correctness

[Famine]

Aha, but is it free speech? Say anything contrary and you're hounded out. Still want to say that is freedom?

Of course it is.

Freedom of speech is the freedom to say what you wish without government censure. It is not a guarantee of a platform to speak nor indemnity from the consequences of speaking.

If Hunt is arrested or imprisoned for what he said, his freedom of speech has been curtailed. If not, it hasn't.

 

[Liquid]

Aha, but is it free speech? Say anything contrary and you're hounded out. Still want to say that is freedom?

Yes. Free speech means the protection of speech from censure by the government; to ensure that our representatives are neither immune to criticism nor able to persecute or prosecute based on that. This was not broken in either of your noted cases.

This is another topic which has been done to death on this board. Free speech does not mean "say what you want without having to deal with the consequences of your words". It absolutely comes with the consequences of what one says.

As Famine eloquently puts it, "freedom of speech (or rather expression) isn't about saying what you like when you like with impunity. It's about saying what you like when you like without prosecution from government."

Remember also that numeous commentators in 2007 were calling for Watson to be investigated for breaching hate laws. Imagine if this occured in 2015.

There shouldn't be such an investigation and happily, there wasn't.

Before you discuss other free speech cases, start digging out story X, Y & Z and we get horrendously sidetracked as we so often do, I want to be clear that these posts are addressing your two originally linked stories. Free speech has not been compromised.

We have talked about cases of genuine free speech censorship before, so do not think that I or others like me think everything is fine and dandy. It isn't. But you treat things on a case-by-case basis and this one is neither political correctness nor free speech impediment.

Perhaps this discussion is better suited for the Free Speech thread the linked post is in?

 

[Dotini]

Political correctness (adjectivally, politically correct, commonly abbreviated to PC) is a pejorative term used to condemn language, actions, or policies seen as being excessively calculated to not offend or disadvantage any particular group of people in society. The term had only scattered usage prior to the 1990s, usually as an ironic self-description, but entered mainstream usage in the United States when conservative author Dinesh D'Souza used it to condemn what he saw as left-wing efforts to advance multiculturalism through language, affirmative action, opposition to hate speech, and changes to the content of school curriculums.[1] The term came to be commonly used in the United Kingdom around the same period, especially in periodicals such as the Daily Mail, a conservative tabloid that became known for the trope "political correctness gone mad."

Scholars on the political left have said that conservatives and right-wing libertarians such as D'Souza pushed the term in order to divert attention from more substantive matters of discrimination and as part of a broader culture war against liberalism.[2][3] They have also said that conservatives have their own forms of political correctness, which is generally ignored.[4][5][6]

 

[KSaiyu]

Perhaps we're at the stage were we have to start challenging political correctness. Even the Guardianista seem divided on this latest story.

 

[FoolKiller]

Another victory for the PC brigade as Nobel laureate Tim Hunt resigns after his comments on women.

To be honest, I think if he had stuck to the relationships issue he would be fine. Workplace romances do cause issues, and as a straight man explaining his own issue with women in the lab, this makes sense.

But then he said that when you criticize them they cry. I've only seen one female in the workplace cry, and that is because she was losing her job. He went from a legitimate social comment to a fairly rude one.

It seems shunning the co-discoverer of the structure of DNA and killing debate on race and intelligence wasn't good enough.

It's like Marge Schott and Pete Rose had a baby who became a genetic scientist.

I do feel that political correctness is creating a degree of disingenuousness when it comes to historical figures. They don't stop at calling James Watson a racist. They go on to pretend he doesn't exist. I honestly believe that they would rewrite history to take any claim to discovery from him.

I already see historical figures being repainted based on activities outside of what made them famous. This past year I saw a few instances of why we shouldn't celebrate Columbus Day. Some of the founding fathers are now having their names tarnished. I am waiting to see if Martin Luther King Jr's extramarital activities will sully his reputation.

Perhaps we're at the stage were we have to start challenging political correctness. Even the Guardianista seem divided on this latest story.

I feel it does need to be challenged in some areas. In some cases it has been. The Duck Dynasty guy gave his honest opinion on homosexual marriage and the network demanded he be removed from the show. after some pressure that threatened the show as a whole the network gave in. They also had issues with the network's treatment of the family's prayer at the end of every episode and won that battle by taking it public.


Ultimately, a business can judge their own employees and staff based on their actions. However, I think there is a degree to which it goes too far. Harmless behavior, like having a personal belief that you don't force on others in anyway other than admitting to it shouldn't be an issue. Actively treating others differently is a different story. Tim Hunt's case of talking about women in the workplace, that creates a problem in a workplace environment and the university is responsible for that.

The one thing that annoys me to no end though is when a journalist asks a direct question and the honest answer, that never showed up in anyway before that moment, causes controversy. Most notably are Phil Robertson and the Chick-Fil-A incident. All the media's reaction has done is encouraged an environment where public figures will hide their true feelings and lie in public.

And ultimately, the media doesn't care, morally, if the guy is racist or homophobic or sexist. They only care for ratings. It is why they ask the irrelevant question to start with. If everyone pretended to be ideal citizens the media would be unable to keep viewers interested. From a business perspective media wants people to be prejudiced and the reactions the audience buys into are completely fake.

 

[KSaiyu]

I honestly believe that they would rewrite history to take any claim to discovery from him.

And that is the right conclusion to draw when assessing the danger of political correctness.

There's an excellent Youtube series that shows how a game called Metal Gear Solid 2, released in 2001 predicted the rise of the Social Justice Warrior (SJW) - a creation of the PC movement.

This is the series, but if you aren't interested in how MGS fits in or don't care about "gamergate" watch these two only (LANGUAGE warning).
It provides a summary of the origins of political correctness, the aims of those who created it and how it spread in the west. If anyone is following this thread closely they may remember a video posted by @Latvija27 stating (correctly) that it comes from communism with the warning not to let it happen to our countries. The creator of that video is correct to give this advice, as the series demonstrates.

Here's a part of the ending to MGS2, the famous AI conversation where the antagonists reveal their true motives behind the entire game and discussed in the video:

Colonel: But there are things not covered by genetic information.

Human memories, ideas. Culture. History.
Rose: Genes don't contain any record of human history.
Colonel: Is it something that should not be passed on?

Should that information be left at the mercy of nature?
Rose: We've always kept records of our lives. Through words, pictures, symbols... from tablets to books...

But not all the information was inherited by later generations.
Colonel: A small percentage of the whole was selected and processed, then passed on. Not unlike genes, really.
Rose: That's what history is, Jack.
Colonel: But in the current, digitized world,

trivial information is accumulating every second, preserved in all its triteness.

Never fading, always accessible.
Rose: Rumors about petty issues, misinterpretations, slander...
Colonel: All this junk data preserved in an unfiltered state, growing at an alarming rate.
Rose: It will only slow down social progress, reduce the rate of evolution.
Colonel: Raiden, you seem to think that our plan is one of censorship.
Raiden: Are you telling me it's not!?
Rose: You're being silly! What we propose to do is not to control content, but to create context.
Raiden: Create context?
Colonel: The digital society furthers human flaws and selectively rewards

development of convenient half-truths.

Just look at the strange juxtapositions of morality around you.
Rose: Billions spent on new weapons in order to humanely murder other humans.
Colonel: Rights of criminals are given more respect than the privacy of their victims.
Rose: Although there are people suffering in poverty, huge donations are made to protect endangered species.

Everyone grows up being told the same thing.
Colonel: Be nice to other people.
Rose: But beat out the competition!
Colonel: "You're special." "Believe in yourself and you will succeed."
Rose: But it's obvious from the start that only a few can succeed...
Colonel: You exercise your right to "freedom" and this is the result.

All rhetoric to avoid conflict and protect each other from hurt.

The untested truths spun by different interests continue to churn and accumulate

in the sandbox of political correctness and value systems.
Rose: Everyone withdraws into their own small gated community, afraid of a larger forum.

They stay inside their little ponds,

leaking whatever "truth" suits them into the growing cesspool of society at large.
Colonel: The different cardinal truths neither clash nor mesh.

No one is invalidated, but nobody is right.
Rose: Not even natural selection can take place here. The world is being engulfed in "truth."
this is the way the world ends. Not with a bang, but a whimper.
Rose: We're trying to stop that from happening.
Colonel: It's our responsibility as rulers.

Just as in genetics, unnecessary information and memory must be filtered out

to stimulate the evolution of the species.
Raiden: And you think you're qualified to decide what's necessary and not!?
Colonel: Absolutely. Who else could wade through the sea of garbage you people produce,

retrieve valuable truths and even interpret their meaning for later generations?
Rose: That's what it means to create context.

And so we start to see what political correctness is, a form of content filter designed to repress evolution by removing the selective pressure brought from argument. Let's take an example:

This is the article I found about @FoolKiller s "Chick-Fil-A incident", and here is a line from the article:

"In the latest development to stem from "Ducky Dynasty" star Phil Robertson's homophobic and racist comments in a recent GQ profile"

The link doesn't even link to his "racist" remarks, but for a lot of readers the "anti-gay" story is enough to believe that he said racist comments. After all, why would Huffington Post lie?

Here is the article they meant to link to in addition, and this is the title:

'Duck Dynasty' Star Phil Robertson Claims Black People Were 'Happy' Pre-Civil Rights

The top result with the google term "Phil Robertson racist" goes with:

Phil Robertson: Black People Were ‘Happy’ Before Civil Rights

Both neglect to mention, however, that this was just his experience of the black people he worked with during that time (something brought up by the comments section). The Huffington even give a statement from the NAACP saying:

"We want to be clear why Phil Robertson’s remarks are not just dangerous but also inaccurate. Mr. Robertson claims that, from what he saw, African Americans were happier under Jim Crow."

Factually inaccurate, but it's allowed without question since the NAACP are the de facto voice of oppressed blacks. Which gets to the point of the video. Equal rights aren't enough for the political correctness lobby, and by extension SJWs. They know that on an even playing field some can't compete - in large part down to genetics. As such they go back to their roots, those based on Marxism - destroy the dominant force and bring everyone down to the lowest common denominator. It's no coincidence that a lot of socialist targets to bring about the destruction of Western civilisation are things deemed politically correct (explained better in the video). Things like destruction of the family (see the feminist movement), destruction of religion (see the threads on Christianity I've participated in, and the laughable double standards applied to Christianity compared to other religions), destruction of education (consider the iron grip the unions have on education in Britain, and how we continue to slide down the international rankings. All the while telling our little darlings how special they all are) are happening unchallenged due to the opposition being silenced by the PC police.

So where does Watson fit in? He challenged the PC version of history, stating his observations on race and intelligence. What has PC deemed we should think?

That different races evolved from a common ancestor, and that:
- The different races look different.
- The different races sound different.
- The different races have varying levels of strength.
- The different races have different susceptibilities to disease.
- The different races have certain differing quirks, eg blacks have more rhythm, whites have a tendency to subjugate others etc
- The different races have the same level of intelligence and reasoning capabilities.

Can you blame the co-discoverer of the structure of genetic material calling BS on that last claim. But to do so would expose too many "truths" built up by the PC lobby, such as the only thing that has held Africa back is colonisation and "the white man", and exposing would also re-instate the selective pressure the PC lobby has a monopoly on. Far easier to scream racism, use him as an example of those who challenge the status quo and carry on feeding the lie that many other lies are based on to the masses. For what purpose? So we can blame others for our faults, and everyone can be a winner.

"Those poor kids! Let's get rid of sports days so everyone wins!"
"Too fat to accomplish something? Don't blame yourself, it's those normal sized people who are to blame!"
"Not getting that promotion? Such is the life of a man of colour my friend, the white man continues to hold you down"
"Your kids can't get a job after generations of in-breeding and your cousin went off to Syria? Not your religion's fault, oh no! It's Britain and their intolerant ways"

On and on and on it goes, all to halt self improvement, drive out competition and reduce us to this:

No but seriously. It's Marxism by the back door. Always has been.

And so we have the awkward situation where a generation of people have been bought up worshipping a different god, the god of PC. They can't argue anything past ad-hominem attacks and believe they are in the right because, well, they have to be since they've been taught it at school, over the internet and by their friends. The video does a great job of showing how we just retreat to groups we identify with (be it the online papers we read, message boards, twitter feeds), and are fed their convenient half truths over and over again and so kept in a state where evolution of ideas is almost impossible.

Is this how the world ends, like the AI in the game predicted it would. Well no, but a change is definitely coming or at least needed.

EDIT: You can see why Kojima is considered a genius. 2001 and the internet and digital age was still in its infancy.

 

[Dotini]

And that is the right conclusion to draw when assessing the danger of political correctness.

There's an excellent Youtube series that shows how a game called Metal Gear Solid 2, released in 2001 predicted the rise of the Social Justice Warrior (SJW) - a creation of the PC movement.

This is the series, but if you aren't interested in how MGS fits in or don't care about "gamergate" watch these two only (LANGUAGE warning).
It provides a summary of the origins of political correctness, the aims of those who created it and how it spread in the west. If anyone is following this thread closely they may remember a video posted by @Latvija27 stating (correctly) that it comes from communism with the warning not to let it happen to our countries. The creator of that video is correct to give this advice, as the series demonstrates.

Here's a part of the ending to MGS2, the famous AI conversation where the antagonists reveal their true motives behind the entire game and discussed in the video:

And so we start to see what political correctness is, a form of content filter designed to repress evolution by removing the selective pressure brought from argument. Let's take an example:

This is the article I found about @FoolKiller s "Chick-Fil-A incident", and here is a line from the article:

"In the latest development to stem from "Ducky Dynasty" star Phil Robertson's homophobic and racist comments in a recent GQ profile"

The link doesn't even link to his "racist" remarks, but for a lot of readers the "anti-gay" story is enough to believe that he said racist comments. After all, why would Huffington Post lie?

Here is the article they meant to link to in addition, and this is the title:

'Duck Dynasty' Star Phil Robertson Claims Black People Were 'Happy' Pre-Civil Rights

The top result with the google term "Phil Robertson racist" goes with:

Phil Robertson: Black People Were ‘Happy’ Before Civil Rights

Both neglect to mention, however, that this was just his experience of the black people he worked with during that time (something brought up by the comments section). The Huffington even give a statement from the NAACP saying:

"We want to be clear why Phil Robertson’s remarks are not just dangerous but also inaccurate. Mr. Robertson claims that, from what he saw, African Americans were happier under Jim Crow."

Factually inaccurate, but it's allowed without question since the NAACP are the de facto voice of oppressed blacks. Which gets to the point of the video. Equal rights aren't enough for the political correctness lobby, and by extension SJWs. They know that on an even playing field some can't compete - in large part down to genetics. As such they go back to their roots, those based on Marxism - destroy the dominant force and bring everyone down to the lowest common denominator. It's no coincidence that a lot of socialist targets to bring about the destruction of Western civilisation are things deemed politically correct (explained better in the video). Things like destruction of the family (see the feminist movement), destruction of religion (see the threads on Christianity I've participated in, and the laughable double standards applied to Christianity compared to other religions), destruction of education (consider the iron grip the unions have on education in Britain, and how we continue to slide down the international rankings. All the while telling our little darlings how special they all are) are happening unchallenged due to the opposition being silenced by the PC police.

So where does Watson fit in? He challenged the PC version of history, stating his observations on race and intelligence. What has PC deemed we should think?

That different races evolved from a common ancestor, and that:
- The different races look different.
- The different races sound different.
- The different races have varying levels of strength.
- The different races have different susceptibilities to disease.
- The different races have certain differing quirks, eg blacks have more rhythm, whites have a tendency to subjugate others etc
- The different races have the same level of intelligence and reasoning capabilities.

Can you blame the co-discoverer of the structure of genetic material calling BS on that last claim. But to do so would expose too many "truths" built up by the PC lobby, such as the only thing that has held Africa back is colonisation and "the white man", and exposing would also re-instate the selective pressure the PC lobby has a monopoly on. Far easier to scream racism, use him as an example of those who challenge the status quo and carry on feeding the lie that many other lies are based on to the masses. For what purpose? So we can blame others for our faults, and everyone can be a winner.

"Those poor kids! Let's get rid of sports days so everyone wins!"
"Too fat to accomplish something? Don't blame yourself, it's those normal sized people who are to blame!"
"Not getting that promotion? Such is the life of a man of colour my friend, the white man continues to hold you down"
"Your kids can't get a job after generations of in-breeding and your cousin went off to Syria? Not your religion's fault, oh no! It's Britain and their intolerant ways"

On and on and on it goes, all to halt self improvement, drive out competition and reduce us to this:

No but seriously. It's Marxism by the back door. Always has been.

And so we have the awkward situation where a generation of people have been bought up worshipping a different god, the god of PC. They can't argue anything past ad-hominem attacks and believe they are in the right because, well, they have to be since they've been taught it at school, over the internet and by their friends. The video does a great job of showing how we just retreat to groups we identify with (be it the online papers we read, message boards, twitter feeds), and are fed their convenient half truths over and over again and so kept in a state where evolution of ideas is almost impossible.

Is this how the world ends, like the AI in the game predicted it would. Well no, but a change is definitely coming or at least needed.

Nifty post, but allow me to riposte with the argument that, alas, PC is required to govern a world of billions of would-be evolving people with their own ideas, identities and histories. Too unruly. It's simply not utile.

What is needed is, in the words of House Bolton, "A peaceful land, a quiet people. That has always been my rule. Make it yours."

 

[Joel]

There's an excellent Youtube series that shows how a game called Metal Gear Solid 2, released in 2001 predicted the rise of the Social Justice Warrior (SJW) - a creation of the PC movement.

Yes, sure is a shame that those Tumblrina, leftist, marxist, PC, SJW, liberals of The Left just retreat into echo chambers and use buzzwords to shout down their opponents. Those damn Ess Jay Double Yous who ignore the truth.

Equal rights aren't enough for the political correctness lobby, and by extension SJWs. They know that on an even playing field some can't compete - in large part down to genetics.

This is called projection. You believe that certain people can't compete because of genetics and because you hold that to be self evident truth, you think the PC liberals just ignore it and have a flipped perspective. In reality your worldview is based on an unfounded claim - that "we" all know certain groups are just genetically inferior. That is not a self evident truth and you have not supported it.

People like me (guess I'm an SJW!) genuinely do not subscribe to that worldview. I do not have an inverted version of your worldview, it is a fundamentally different one in which I do not subscribe to the idea that "some people" can't compete because of genetics, or "some people" have superior or inferior genetics.

Before you start of course there are niche contexts like professional sports and elite special forces units where genetics matter to the 0.1% on the far right of the bell curve. We're not talking about Usain Bolt and Michael Phelps.

 

[Liquid]

Metal Gear Solid 2 is a great game with some excellent social commentary but you can overthink that a lot. It's more of a new world order suppression conspiracy than a Feminazi identity "triggered" cis scum passing-off "don't use those words" conspiracy.

 

[Famine]

That different races evolved from a common ancestor

[Citation needed]

In case of interpretation failure, race is anthropological, not genetic.

 

[Joel]

Metal Gear Solid 2 is a great game with some excellent social commentary but you can overthink that a lot. It's more of a new world order suppression conspiracy than a Feminazi identity "triggered" cis scum passing-off "don't use those words" conspiracy.

Well and the irony is that interpreting the game as predicting social justice movements or tumblr and feminism is falling right into the same trap.

The idea that tumblr and SJW's are ruining everything is not self evident truth. It is not objectively proven. It is held to be truth in conservative online circles who discuss what they perceive as a threat, and then take to bigger sites and talk about as proven truth. It is the exact same process of intensifying views through echo chambers that tumblr and "SJW's" are accused of when they discuss privilege, racism, or sexism in society.

The internet is set up to create a personal echo chamber for everyone. We find forums to discuss things we like. Google tailors your searches to you, based on their tracking data and where you're searching from. Sometimes it's benign, like how when you search "Football" you'll get a different sport if you're in EU or NA. Other times it's more troubling, where if you search controversial topics it will show you results in line with your views.

[Citation needed]

In case of interpretation failure, race is anthropological, not genetic.

SJW! SJW! SJW! Go back to tumblr you overly PC liberal! What would you know about genetics?!

 

[KSaiyu]

[Citation needed]

In case of interpretation failure, race is anthropological, not genetic.

Damnit, this is why I fail the "evolution" strain of my course!

Don't ever be my OSCE examiner please. I had to sit back in a formative one whilst another student said there were "24 pairs of chromosomes"

SJW! SJW! SJW! Go back to tumblr you overly PC liberal! What would you know about genetics?!

More than me, but that's evolution in progress (in this case memes - think back to MGS2). I take it on board and revise my argument.

If I tell you that homozygous Sickle Cell Disease is associated with lower intelligence, and then tell you that owing to a selective advantage of being heterozygous for the disease protecting against Malaria the map of sickle cell allele frequency is this:

Would you agree that a study on the effects of the heterozygous sickle cell trait on intelligence is timely?

 

[TenEightyOne]

If I tell you that homozygous Sickle Cell Disease is associated with lower intelligence, and then tell you that owing to a selective advantage of being heterozygous for the disease protecting against Malaria the map of sickle cell allele frequency is this...would you agree that a study on the effects of the heterozygous sickle cell trait on intelligence is timely?

I'd ask why you think it is.

We know that sickle cell anaemia is an evolutionary reaction to malaria and that sufferers most often present with certain traits such as reduced intelligence (your own link). We know that the very large majority of sufferers are African or of African descent. To me the more research that's done into all aspects the better... but something tells me that's not your point?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

To me the more research that's done into all aspects the better... but something tells me that's not your point?

Of course it isn't. He just wants to prove that one race is genetically superior to anoth ... oooh.

 

[KSaiyu]

I'd ask why you think it is.

We know that sickle cell anaemia is an evolutionary reaction to malaria and that sufferers most often present with certain traits such as reduced intelligence (your own link). We know that the very large majority of sufferers are African or of African descent. To me the more research that's done into all aspects the better... but something tells me that's not your point?

Ask the relevant question.

Why don't we research individuals who are heterozygous for sickle cell anaemia against controls with regards to intelligence?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Because you're making a fallacious assumption: that because A + B = C under certain circumstances, A = C every time. Correlation does not imply causation, and scientific theories should be born out of evidence rather than having evidence selectively chosen to fit the facts. It's called begging the question, and it's not the first time you have done it - you ask a question, but you have already decided what the answer should be, so you phrase the question in such a way that the discussion goes in the direction that you want it to.

 

[KSaiyu]

Erm, that isn't how science works. You can't say something is a fallacious assumption if you have no evidence to back it up and it hasn't been tested in the first place. You are sounding like a man of religion now.

The question put forward is: Do carriers of the sickle trait (heterozygous) have lower intelligence compared to controls, following on from the fact that sickle cell disease (homozygous) causes lower intelligence.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Because you're making a fallacious assumption: that because A + B = C under certain circumstances, A = C every time. Correlation does not imply causation, and scientific theories should be born out of evidence rather than having evidence selectively chosen to fit the facts.

I don't think that'll float @KSaiyu's boat, but we should find out.

Erm, that isn't how science works.

Immigration to the UK has spiralled since Marathon changed to Snickers, and that's a fact. But as @prisonermonkeys said correlation =/= causation.

The question put forward is: Do carriers of the sickle trait (heterozygous) have lower intelligence compared to controls, following on from the fact that sickle cell disease (homozygous) causes lower intelligence.

Dependent on their prepubertal growth curve, they can show a "modest" reduction in IQ that may be clinically correctable in pre-pubescence.

 

[KSaiyu]

I don't think that'll float @KSaiyu's boat, but we should find out.

I think I know the difference between correlation and causation.

Immigration to the UK has spiralled since Marathon changed to Snickers, and that's a fact. But as @prisonermonkeys said correlation =/= causation.

I think I know the difference between correlation and causation.

Dependent on their prepubertal growth curve, they can show a "modest" reduction in IQ that may be clinically correctable in pre-pubescence.

You're talking about homozygous SCD. I asked about those with sickle cell trait.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I think I know the difference between correlation and causation.

And yet here we are, having a discussion where you have suggested that correlation between data suggests causation.

 

[TenEightyOne]

You're talking about homozygous SCD. I asked about those with sickle cell trait.

Then you need a source outside the original link you posted, or maybe you should get to your point?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Then you need a source outside the original link you posted, or maybe you should get to your point?

I think his point is pretty obvious: that people with the sickle cell trait are more likely to have lower intelligence. People of Asian and African descent are more likely to have the sickle cell trait than Caucasians. Therefore, people who are of Asian or African descent are more likely to be of lower intelligence than Caucasians. Ignoring the fallacy of this logic for the moment, KSaiyu clearly thinks that if he can scientifically "prove" this idea, then he is not being politically incorrect in his belief that Caucasians are more intelligent than Asians and Africans.

Put that in the context of his rants against immigrants and Muslims and liberals and anyone who isn't him, and it's pretty obvious what he's trying to do - it's the typical bigot's arguments that "it's not bigotry if I'm right" and "I say what everyone is thinking but is too afraid to say".

 

[KSaiyu]

Ad hominem, ad hominem, ad hominem.

Answer the question people. Why do we not have data linking sickle cell trait with intelligence.

Go on, answer just once. You know you can between you guys.

Think about it. If we find there is a link, why couldn't we aim to treat it instead of covering our ears screaming "WE ARE ALL THE SAME LALALA, EVERYONE ELSE IS A BIGOT". Let's work the problem. The age of cover ups is coming to an end.

EDIT: PM, where did I say I think Asians have lower intelligence than caucasians?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Answer the question people. Why do we not have data linking sickle cell trait with intelligence.

Because none exists and there's no such data to be collected? Reading between your lines (and I'm prepared to be corrected if I'm wrong) you think that people who live in malaria-rich areas who have the malaria-protection mutation that can lead to sickle-cell anaemia (and by dint to the reduced pre-pubertal growth/intelligence curves) are naturally already of a lower intelligence?

If that's the case then I'd suggest that you were about to try exactly the argument that @prisonermonkeys said you were. You'd need to remember that the intelligence loss from SCA isn't an anthropological (or racial) predisposition, rather an environmental reaction to a disease...

Anyhow, eradicating malaria is the obvious answer, no?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

PM, where did I say I think Asians have lower intelligence than caucasians?

When you made the connection between the sickle cell trait and lower intelligence. If the sickle cell trait is a response to malaria, then you need to take into account the prevalence of malaria in Asia. Perhaps it is not as extensive as it is in Africa, but it is nevertheless present.

Why do we not have data linking sickle cell trait with intelligence.

Go on, answer just once. You know you can between you guys.

Because, as we have explained - and as you have claimed to have understood when you clearly do not - correlation does not imply causation. You're assuming that the sickle cell trait and intelligence are inexorably linked, and have thus far disregarded any other variables.

If we find there is a link, why couldn't we aim to treat it

Because there is no link. Once again, you commit the logical fallacy of selecting evidence to fit a hypothesis. Scientific inquiry is founded on the principle of observing phenomena which you then use to develop a theory. Not the other way around. It's been that way since Thuycideds first proposed it.

Let's work the problem.

I am working on the problem. I have been for weeks. So far I can report no progress.

 

[KSaiyu]

I see what's gone wrong - you've only taken my one link and haven't researched further (admittedly a poor one since it isn't a review article, is from 1995 and is discussing factors associated with SCD but sue me I was in a rush). My fault for only providing that one. Here's some more to get you thinking:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17061284
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16764611
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24523480

Using an analogy a doctor told me for shock but still relevant in this case, think simply what's causing the problem, and that is either "no blood or blood no good". In SCD it is the latter, and the question is what is the impact of SC trait.

So climb up from the "KSaiyu is a bigot" mentality and think about the logical conclusions, and why it would be of benefit to investigate SC trait and intelligence scores. May I suggest you guys are the racists for not wanting to carry out such research because you may not like the results.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I see what's gone wrong - you've only taken my one link and haven't researched further

But it's up to you to provide the sources for your claims, not for other people to research them.

Here's some more to get you thinking:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17061284
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16764611
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24523480

Which show the same thing as your previous links; sickle cell disease (or sickle cell anaemia) cause reduced growth/intelligence curves, in this case the conclusion is that it's via lifelong hypoxia.

What have you added with these?

So climb up from the "KSaiyu is a bigot" mentality and think about the logical conclusions, and why it would be of benefit to investigate SC trait and intelligence scores.

That would take a lot from my personal point of view. And the investigations have taken place (at least into the disease stage), why would you think there'd be any link to reduced intelligence for those with a predisposition as opposed to those showing the disease that manifests as sickle-cell anaemia?

I anticipate that your umbrella of "political correctness" (which incidentally is bollocks) prevents scientists from examining such a propensity.

 

[LeMansAid]

SCD ......., SCJ....... They're all diseases that are best not spread.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I anticipate that your umbrella of "political correctness" (which incidentally is bollocks) prevents scientists from examining such a propensity.

I'm still bemused as to what he is trying to do with this argument myself.

Using it to treat malaria is not practical because we already have the means to do that.

Using it to treat the sickle cell trait is not feasible because there is no definite evidence showing that the sickle cell trait and/or lower intelligence and/or susceptibility to malaria are mutually inclusive.

And using it to treat lower intelligence is impossible because intelligence is not genetic or pathogenic.

So what is the problem that KSaiyu so vehemently insists is both real and treatable via his proposal? And what does it have to do with political correctness?

 

[KSaiyu]

So what is the problem that KSaiyu so vehemently insists is both real and treatable via his proposal? And what does it have to do with political correctness?

No. No

We investigate things and if it's found to be real we treat it. Show me once where I vehemently insisted it was real (hint - don't bother).

Carrying sickle cell trait is not like carrying the cystic fibrosis gene. Now one highly stressful state that can trigger anaemic episodes is pregnancy, so imagine a "blood no good" scenario on a developing brain.

But I see you're struggling with my reasoning so let's proceed with an overt example of PC control. You keep going on about a supposed angle that Caucasians are the superior race in terms of intellect but this is factually untrue, and again only highlights your preconceptions. Here's a small part of a review on race and IQ, remembering that brain size correlates with intelligence:

Race differences in average brain size are observable at birth. A study by
Rushton (1997) analyzed recorded head circumference measurements and IQ
scores from 50,000 children in the Collaborative Perinatal Project followed from
birth to age 7 (Broman, Nichols, Shaugnessy, & Kennedy, 1987). Using the head
circumference measures to calculate cranial capacity at birth, 4 months, 1 year,
and 7 years, at each of these ages, the Asian American children averaged larger
cranial volumes than did the White children, who averaged larger cranial volumes
than did the Black children. Within each race, cranial capacity correlated with IQ
scores. By age 7, the Asian American children averaged an IQ of 110; the White
children, 102; and the Black children 90. Because the Asian American children
were the shortest in stature and the lightest in weight while the Black children
were the tallest in stature and the heaviest in weight, these average race differ-
ences in brain-size/IQ relations were not due to body size.

http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf

Interesting stuff, I'm sure you'll agree. What happened after this review? Let's look at wiki:

The review article "Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability" by Rushton and Jensen was published in 2005.[19] The article was followed by a series of responses, some in support, some critical.[7][20] Richard Nisbett, another psychologist who had also commented at the time, later included an amplified version of his critique as part of the book Intelligence and How to Get It: Why Schools and Cultures Count (2009).[21] Rushton and Jensen in 2010 made a point-by-point reply to this thereafter.[22] A comprehensive review article on the issue was published in the journal American Psychologist in 2012.[23]

Some of the authors proposing genetic explanations for group differences have received funding from the Pioneer Fund which was headed by Rushton until his death in 2012.[9][18][24][25][26] The Southern Poverty Law Center lists the Pioneer Fund as a hate group, citing the fund's history, its funding of race and intelligence research, and its connections with racist individuals.Berlet 2003 On the other hand, Ulrich Neisser writes that "Pioneer has sometimes sponsored useful research—research that otherwise might not have been done at all."[27] Other researchers have criticized the Pioneer Fund for promoting scientific racism, eugenics and white supremacy.

Can't win an argument? Call in the PC police and try to shut down the funding for research!