- "Black American Culture and the Racial Wealth Gap"
- "Cultural Appropriation Isn't Real"
- "Is It Wrong To Blame Islam?"
- "Why Women Don't Code"
- "How an Anonymous Accusation Derailed My Life"
None of these are even remotely taboo to a center-to-right-leaning audience. Hell, even liberal publications are perfectly willing to take on these topics; here's a New York Times article literally called "Three Cheers for Cultural Appropriation"! https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/30/opinion/cultural-appropri...
There are people here in the Bay Area who would look at such topics, and will pattern-match anything which isn't the Far Left party line, and immediately try to tar you with the worst names they can think of. The mindlessness of it is indeed breathtaking. I can understand the motivation behind certain current memes.
I'm not making any claim about the people to whom you're referring. I'm just asserting that it's disingenuous to claim that the topics Quillette covers are "taboo", given the breadth and number of publications who promote the exact same viewpoints.
No disagreement. We should be living in an open society where even unpleasant questions can be asked. We shouldn't be living in a society where force and coercion is used against "wrongthinkers."
You could describe all the lies Trump tells and his employees and supporters defend against all evidence and logic as "PC", but no one does. Instead he attacks Climate Change or Free Trade or Ozone Protection as PC hoaxes. And notably Quillete avoid Trump despite several of their big name contributors being scathing about him in other venues.
I did a search on climate change, which is a reasonable bellwether for this kind of thing. I didn't find outright denial (which I guess I should celebrate, just like I celebrate the incoming head of the House Committee on Science not being a denier, even though it's the lowest of bars to meet) but I did find a rambling blog-like article about expertise that suggests we should believe climate change experts but also not do anything they recommend because they're not policy experts. And we should also believe a politician that says coal is good for humanity and believe coal experts that coal is better than renewables.
It was all a bit wishy-washy but clearly wishy-washy nonsense from within their own social conservative tribe is fine, despite their attempt to paint themselves as unbiased iconoclasts of exactly that kind of thing.
Politics is increasingly being wired up to tribal, emotional cues, where the first thing people do when confronting a new piece of information is establish which tribe it belongs to, so they can read it with the right frame of mind - confirmation bias both ways.
Precise writing backed by facts and some research is in short supply because it isn't as sticky and engaging, it doesn't get the blood flowing, whether it's raging one way or another.
An article challenging left orthodoxies is far more valuable when written from a rational standpoint than from an explicitly right-wing standpoint.
Plenty of "human biodiversity" (neo-race science) nonsense like this floating around. The back half of the article amounts to the authors taking the premise that blacks are cognitively inferior to whites as a given, and then throwing up their hands and saying "Look, we examined the evidence, and the only explanation that makes sense is that they're genetically inferior!", complete with laments for poor social science researchers who have been unfairly persecuted for their objective, scientifically-minded investigations into the reasons why black people are just so damn stupid.
If you think few IQ points difference (whether it is or it is not so) is enough to denigrate the entire race as stupid or worthless, you are a part of the problem.
More importantly, as pointed out in an article by Kevin Mitchell [3], a professor of genetics and neuroscience in Dublin, we do not really know of any plausible mechanism by which such differences could have evolved. In the end, if you want to do science, you have to propose a theory by which an effect can be explained and then test that theory. What Murray & Co. have never done is to provide a testable theory that explains how cause and effect are supposed to be related.
[1] http://www.poverty.org.uk/low-income-and-ethnicity/
[2] http://www.unz.com/jthompson/intelligence-of-5-year-olds-in-... (not keen on citing James Thompson here, but I didn't find an open access source for the data)
[3] https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2018/may/02/why-gen...
> This constant churn of genetic variation works against any long-term rise or fall in intelligence.
How did humans evolve then?!
Hi dang, can we please get bans for people trying to mainstream racist pseudoscience on HN?
-----------------------------------------
To what extent do poor spending habits explain the persistence of the wealth gap? Economists at the University of Chicago and the University of Pennsylvania asked this question after analyzing 16 years of nationally representative data from the Consumer Expenditure Survey. Consistent with the Nielsen data, they found that blacks with comparable incomes to whites spent 17 percent less on education, and 32 percent more (an extra $2300 per year in 2005 dollars) on ‘visible goods’—defined as cars, jewelry, and clothes. What’s more, “after controlling for visible spending,” they concluded that the “wealth gap between Blacks and Whites, conditional on permanent income, declines by 50 percent.” To be clear, that 50 percent figure doesn’t pertain to the total wealth gap, but to the proportion of the gap that remains after income is taken into account—which was 40 percent. The upshot: the fact that blacks spent more on cars, jewelry, and clothes explained fully 20 percent of the total racial wealth gap.
[1] https://quillette.com/2018/07/19/black-american-culture-and-...
In short: There is an implication in the Coleman essay that African Americans have less wealth because they spend more.
Problem with that:
1. While black people spend more on these items than white people, white people spend correspondingly more on other luxury goods.
2. Quote: "[...] once income is controlled, if anything, black families actually have a slightly higher savings rate than their white counterparts. [...] If anything, it appears that blacks generally live more frugal lives than whites; a study conducted by the Institute on Assets and Social Policy using the 2013 Survey of Consumer Finances found that, at comparable levels of income, whites spend 1.3 times more than blacks (Traub et al.)"
So, yeah, the entire argument depends on a cherry-picked metric (we're leaving aside the question to what extent cars and clothing are necessarily Veblen goods and to what extent differences in types of spending are the result of different social constraints and incentives [2]) that does not reflect actual spending and saving habits well.
What Quillette essentially is: a Gish Gallop [3] in webzine form. Debunking all this takes time and effort and few people have the spare time to keep up with their output, and even then the debunking is often not seen by the original readers.
[1] https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=21121635...
[2] For example, the problem that it can be more important for a black person to appear well-dressed to compensate for racial bias than for a white person.
Here's a technique employed in this article and in many other Quillette articles: Person X said A and B; A is wrong because of [some citations], therefore B is wrong, and we conclude that C is completely wrong because science, QED. However, A is a peripheral argument while B is the central one, which in any event does not depend on A, and C is an argument which no one has made and is usually a gross straw-man generalization of B. Another technique, employed here and elsewhere, is: X said S; T is wrong because of [some citations]; but S rests on T therefore S is wrong because science, QED. But, of course, "science" does not show that S rests on T. Even if T => S, the conclusion that S rests on T (i.e. ~T => ~S, which is equivalent to S => T) is wrong. Yet another technique is: A => B according to [some citations] and C => D according to [some citations], therefore A => D because B => C, QED. But B => C is not established.
These are all things that give a cursory reader the illusion of rigor, as they may come to believe that if rigor is used anywhere in the argument, then the argument is rigorous (while, in fact, an argument is rigorous iff rigor is used everywhere). Of course, some of the texts Quillette's articles respond to are not rigorous either, but Quillette's core technique relies on the illusion of rigor, hence pseudoscience or scientism.
Of course you would get the exact same pushback if you were wrong, or your ideas potentially harmful. So the two possibilities can't really be distinguished by the reaction alone, making this essay fall on the "unactionable" side of the Paul Graham obvious<->unactionable scale.
But when everyone disagrees with me, Bayesian logic tells me that I'm the only one who knows Bayesian logic and probably right.
If you go around saying the Holocaust didn't happen, people will tell you that you're wrong and will point to verifiable evidence in the historic record, and Holocaust denial is ten times as controversial as anything you'll read in Quillette.
I don't see anything wrong with that. Someone has to read it and respond to it, but I'm fine with being one of the 49.
* For the sake of illustration, I omit the fact that 1 or 2 of the 50 might promote your work.
P.S. This may read like I'm comparing Quillete to holocaust denial. This is not my intent.
Is there a reason people are talking about those things on Quillette?
So are internet comment sections. If you've seriously never seen anti-Semitic nonsense on the internet before, I'm going to assume you either never read the comments or are in a left-wing internet bubble (and, even then, you'll still likely run into a different style of anti-Semitic nonsense.)
In theory, some good is done by having this discussion in broad daylight instead of on Gab, which might just be an echo chamber. In fact, when I see folks like that coming into a party on a Friday night, I head out -- because as one of these people who is getting uppity and above my station in life by doing things I'm not genetically supposed to be inclined to do, I've developed a little bit of sense about who to avoid if I don't want to get beat up, literally or metaphorically.
* https://quillette.com/2018/11/09/an-israeli-agent-on-campus/ * https://quillette.com/2018/10/28/fight-the-scourge-of-antise... * https://quillette.com/2018/03/15/alt-right-gets-wrong-jews/ * https://quillette.com/2016/04/28/labour-in-meltdown-but-what... * https://quillette.com/2018/04/03/labour-power-games-threaten... * https://quillette.com/2018/05/13/libel-jordan-peterson-forwa...
It’s disingenuous to tar one side for their comment threads while making excuses for political leaders on the left who condone and even court anti-Semitism, such as Jeremy Corbyn, Jesse Jackson, and Bill Clinton.
But there's anti-Semitism all over the quillette comment section.
A couple of commenters even went out of their way to write coherently-worded, but disgusting, multi-paragraph anti-semitic rants.
I've seen comments like that on Stormfront or, recently, the comments section on Fox News articles.
However the dozens of social media groups, mailing lists and forums I'm a member of don't seem to have a problem with anti-semitic conspiracy theories littering their pages. Most of them are academic, tech or humor related and are far from a 'left wing internet bubble' you want to pigeonhole me as being stuck in.
What is it about Quillette that attracts such anti-semitic commenters? Is it just something about the article?
[1] "A Closer Look at Anti-White Rhetoric" https://quillette.com/2018/08/17/a-closer-look-at-anti-white...
http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html
https://quillette.com/