He defends what he posted under Mencius Moldbug in a Medium blogpost here[0], which is nominally level-headed. There are in fact genetic differences across ethnic groups (sickle cell anemia comes to mind immediately), and it would be silly to think that the only possible generic changes are changed skin color and a specific blood disorder.

You can say that since men have a statistically higher muscle density, they are genetically better slaves than women are. That does not mean that I'm advocating we enslave all men, or that slavery is anything other than abhorrent.

0: https://medium.com/@curtis.yarvin/why-you-should-come-to-lam...

Oddly enough, he never made that claim re:men and women. I wonder why he focuses on certain ethnic groups.

There's a lot of rationalization going on here for people that usually are quite capable of critical thinking.

This is a hugely fallacious argument.

Everyone focuses on something, if you want to extend your argument he should have also focused on diet, type of exercise, type of housing slaves are kept in, etc.

Focusing on every single factor that could possibly effect slavery would be an endeavor probably greater than the average lifetime.

Saying that some group of people or another would likely make better slaves than others is no different than saying that a certain group is more likely to be poor than another or be in jail than another. It may be considered in bad taste to discuss, but it isn't morally wrong to discuss.

It is simply remarking on what is, not what should be.

Do you think there's an ethnic group genetically more likely to be poor or in jail?

I think there are multiple ethnic groups more likely to be poor or in jail.

I have no idea whether genetics is a cause, I doubt it, but it is a perfectly reasonable hypothesis and thinking it is true does not make one racist.

If thinking ethnic groups are genetically predisposed to being poor or in jail is not racist, what would qualify as racist?

First off, in my opinion I don't really care what anyone thinks. I care about what they do and what they encourage other people to do (I can't find anything about moldbug treating anyone in any negative fashion nor encouraging others to do so). However, in the context of racist thoughts:

1. (Least bad, though still racist/bad) Believing that other ethnic groups are "better" or "superior" rather than "different". So if you honestly believed that the ethnic groups are inferior due to their genetic traits (I do not consider being predisposed to slavery, jail, being poor etc something to consider a group inferior for especially since it wouldn't be that clear cut anyway. It'd actually be something like "predisposed to aggressive behavior, which leads to jail" or something anyway).

In the case of hard evidence of a genetic predisposition to something directly negative it is possible for this opinion to be technically correct but still racist and morally wrong.

2. (Worse than 1, implies 1) Believing that actions should be taken to the detriment of the "inferior" ethnic groups and/or benefit of the "superior" ethnic groups. This would include things like enslaving people, not hiring them, promoting/demoting people based on ethnic group etc. There are a lot of items in this list including everything America did to the detriment of the Africans.

3. (worse than 2, implies 1 and 2) Actually carrying out actions or encouraging others to carry out actions that are to the detriment and/or benefit on a particular ethnic group.

In my case, I'd be willing to work with a 1. but would respect them less than otherwise. A number 2. would be dicey, i -might- be able to work with them if they don't talk about it and aren't going around regularly talking about it to others but it would drive me crazy. I would not agree with censoring/banning people from number 2. I would quit/not hire/stay away from someone with number 3 and would support banning them from communities though still not censorship (I am hardcore against censorship).

Under point 1, a belief that some ethnic groups are less intelligent than cattle, but believing that it is not a negative trait, would not be racist? I'd classify that as a racist belief, wouldn't you?

That would be a belief they are subhuman, which is inherently negative. So yes, that would be racist.

Where would that subhuman line be? If they think an adult from one ethnic group is as intelligent as an infant in another, but that there's nothing wrong with that, is that believing they're subhuman and hence racist?

These things have no clear lines, welcome to reality.

This response applies to the previous line about being the intelligence of cattle as well, now that i've given it more thought.

Intelligence can be measured so more context would be needed here. In this hypothetical scenario has one group of humans either fallen through some kind of circumstance to a lower level of intelligence(not knowledge) or another has gained significantly more intelligence through some means? In that case they should probably be considered separate species not separate races so we're in a whole new ballgame.

Either way, when "humans" are potentially that different (there's no defensible claim today that any group of humans is significantly less intelligent than any other really) this issue gets very hairy.

Someone thinking that today would definitely be racist.