> These include many people who I know personally, who are diversity loving progressives, but who seem to fall into the trap of disaggregation. Since I don't love diversity and don't care about that issue I don't bring it up with them often. But it's what I call a revealed preference. Or, to give an amusing example, I said something offensive in one of my posts apparently a few years back, which prompted one outraged reader to leave a long shocked rant about my racism. The comment was trashed, and the reader banned. Nevertheless, I traced their Facebook account. The individual was a young white professional resident in San Francisco. And, their friends list was visible. I did a quick spot check, and estimated that ~90 percent of their San Francisco friends were white. In contrast, about ~50 percent of San Francisco's population is white.
> And one last thing: I am sure no one who reads VDARE has watched any pornography of late, but if anyone would care to, they would find that the only class of women that rivals busty blondes in disproportionate numbers in American pornography is East Asian females. Unlike brunette European females, Asian females don't look particularly impressive when blonded in my opinion, and the fact that few Asian females in these films bleach their hair like their European counterparts seems to confirm that most porn viewers share my impression. In other words, Asian females (whether it be for cultural or biological reasons) are in some cases competitive with blondes. (From personal experience in a region of the country where there are many Eurasians- due to the fact that the area is 95%+ white and the non-white marriage pool somewhat limited - I can attest that many Eurasian men prefer Asian females for the same reasons as some European men do).
I don't doubt your bona fides at all, but this person's good name is a bad hill to die on.
I think we should decline to enter into debates framed by racists, and, weirdly, maybe even more avoidant of debates framed by ironic edgelord racists who may well just be trying to get people to have the dumbest possible debates so they can point and laugh. The rule of goats is dispositive here.
I’m reminded of a comment you made the other day about different Asian groups not being equally advantaged in America, or something like that. That struck me as an extremely American framing—that’s not how the Chinese or Taiwanese immigrants I know would frame the issue of different outcomes between Asian groups!
Whatever point you want to make here, I promise better people have made those points, more cogently.
As a total aside to all of this, and leaving out hyperbolic campus-culture and woke-ism stuff, the American framing on these issues is good, superior to the framing of most other cultures. I'm continually disappointed that American conservatives don't do a better job of reclaiming this issue from the left. It's a place where "American exceptionalism" actually holds somewhat true!
Razib didn’t start a company with anyone. As far as I’m aware, he has no relationship with those magazines other than having published some articles. If David Duke’s newsletter publishes an article from someone about how Asians think white people are fat and age poorly, I’m not sure I’d jump to the conclusion that the author is of a piece with David Duke.
> People should write this guy off. He made his own decisions, and can now deal with their consequences. Or not. Either way, we're not losing much.
I disagree. Folks in the left align themselves with actual insurgents like Angela Davis. I’m not going to write them off based on that association.
> the American framing on these issues is good, superior to the framing of most other cultures. I'm continually disappointed that American conservatives don't do a better job of reclaiming this issue from the left. It's a place where "American exceptionalism" actually holds somewhat true!
I’m socialized into the American framing myself, but I can’t condone the white supremacy of universalizing these beliefs. If white people want to say “you brown people have wrong ideas about the nature of social disadvantage and our ideas are superior” let them make that case transparently.
Having read this interesting reference, I can only conclude that you either didn't actually read it, or that you're intentionally trying to mislead your fellow HNer in the hopes they don't actually read it.
If wikipedia had existed in the time of Copernicus, Plato, Giordano Bruno, Galileo or Darwin, I do not think they would be without their own large ‘controversies’ section ;)