Leiter Retort

Brian Leiter is up to his zany antics again, this time trying to smear Rightly Considered as “alt-right” and associated with sexists and anti-Semites.

One of the things some of us admire about Leiter is that, unlike his boyish rival at Daily Nous, Brian has the cojones to criticize us publicly. It even seems, dare I say, that some of Nietzsche’s manliness has rubbed off on him. Moreover, some of us have a suspicion that deep down in his immaterial soul there is a part of Brian that actually likes us, the part that attacks lunatic feminism. As one commenter, “RR,” noted in our recent post, “Nagging Philosophy Shrews and Their Enablers“:

Leiter links while name-calling to cover up the act. Methinks he also agrees with the OP a bit and wants to spread the message.

An interesting hypothesis. Leiter did link to our post. But he still hasn’t found his inner Ubermensch enabling him to resist the current herd morality. So what does he do? He vaguely hand-waved in typically prejudiced, leftist fashion at some sort of sexism (“Unabashed sexist tripe like this”) without either defining sexism (of course) or indicating whether the “this” referred to Criticus (i.e. Criticus is tripe or rubbish), something that he said, or a property of conservative ickiness more generally that is hard for leftists to pin down in intelligible discourse. So if he was criticizing us, his criticism hardly measured up to current leftist standards. It was pretty tame. Not what you’d expect from a card-carrying academic toeing the lefty line.

Now, regarding his actual complaints, though the volume is turned up in this latest post, there’s not much by way of bite to the attempted smear job. He associates the blog with a so-called anti-Semite and commenter named “Jacques”. He then criticizes the blog for not responding to Jacques, saying “That the blog let this stuff stand defies belief.” The criticism is easily dismissed. Start with that fact that our comment policy on our main page reflects the fact that we are true liberals:

Comment Disclaimer

Rightly Considered would like to make clear that we have a very liberal (no pun intended) comment policy. Consequently, some comments posted will involve inflammatory and repugnant views. Readers should not assume that because a comment was approved, Rightly Considered shares the sentiments therein. Very often we don’t.

Next, a quick search will show that at least one contributor does in fact question Jacques’ claims (and contributors regularly question many of his claims in the many blogposts on which he’s commented–it’s a diverse lot). That the rest of us did not reflects no more than that we have lives beyond blogging. Perhaps Leiter can help us knock that stuff down in the comments. Why doesn’t he? He’s obviously reading.

Finally, note that what Jacques says, on my view, is not even anti-Semitic! Regardless of whether his historical claim is correct, he refers to leftist Jews, not Jews per se, and appeals to what he takes to be an empirical fact about them (leftist Jews). Suppose that Anne asserts the following:

White leftists are vastly over-represented among haters, oppressors and mass murderers of Christians, and in anti-Christian movements, and noticeably under-represented in the defense of the interests of Christians.

Is Anne an anti-white racist? Obviously not, and this would remain true even if the assertion were false. Of course, as conservatives have long known, terms such as “anti-Semite”, “sexist”, “racist”, “homophobe”, and the like in the hands of leftists can mean whatever they want whenever they want (which is usually just “I disagree with you” or “Ugh!” or “I don’t know how to intellectually engage you so I’ll engage in moral grandstanding instead”). Stanley can hide behind the term and Leiter can use it as a weapon. But against such weapons Rightly Considered has reason as a shield. (As an aside, this blog is very diverse with respect to religion, sex, nationality, and race/ethnicity. There are Jews, Catholic and Protestant Christians, atheists, men and women, Europeans, Americans, Canadians, Mexicans, Cubans, Italians, Indians, and whites among us. Heck, one of us even has a friend who’s black!)

It is also apparent that Brian is trying to associate this conservative blog with the more radical anti-left elements such as the alt-right. Notice, among other things, how he omits the space between “Rightly” and “Considered” and then says that we’re trending towards the white nationalist website “StormFront”. Look, if you want to know what a blog is about, it’s generally good MO to read their “about” page rather than their open comment threads. Our About page includes the following, among other things:

Obviously, we won’t always agree with each other on everything. … But we all generally identify with the tradition of philosophical conservatism that began with ancient sages like Plato and Aristotle, carried on by Christian thinkers like Augustine and Aquinas, continued through Enlightenment-inspired geniuses like Burke, Tocqueville, and the American Founders, up to economic theorists like Belloc and von Hayek and contemporary authors like Kirk, Buckley, and Sowell.

Notice the last two names on that list: William F. Buckley, who excommunicated the proto-alt-right from the early conservative movement, and Thomas Sowell, a black libertarian-leaning conservative who has argued against alt-right hereditary racial claims. It is true that we probably have more in common with the alt-right than the left; and we probably attract some alt-righters in the comments due to that fact. But many of our contributors are not even a little sympathetic to the alt-right and plan to write posts criticizing it. So the idea that we’re sympathetic to them because we allow them to comment on this blog is manifestly false. After all, we also allowed Clayton Littlejohnson to comment to his little heart’s content, remember?

In conclusion, perhaps Brian’s most hysterical remark is his insinuation in the title of his post that we’re in some way boring. Us? Boring? One would think that since we offer a minority view at Rightly Considered that we’d be less boring than the usual professional philosophy echo chamber of leftist indoctrination. Trust me, we’re at least trying not to be boring. And I promise that we’ll keep striving, dear readers, to add a bit of excitement to the philosophical blogosphere. Stay tuned!




A former police officer, AR-15 (or “AR”) knows the difference between an assault rifle and home defense rifle. AR now fights with other weapons and demolishes arguments. He agrees that the pen is mightier than the sword, but he isn’t so stupid to bring a pen to a gunfight.

View All Posts


  1. I think most people go here to not have to worry about what the Brian Leiters of the world think. Then we come here and have to see that nitwit’s name again! It’s funny he doesn’t actually present an argument about why Jacques is wrong. I actually had to re-read it hoping to find his argument to refute Jacques, but there is none there. What a philosopher.

    • If Mr. Leiter knew how to construct arguments, perhaps he would do so. But that is a lost art. All you need now in academia is enough expressions of solidarity with the “oppressed” and “marginalized” to watch the effusive fawning ensue.

  2. let’s be serious here. there is no sense prettying ourselves up when we want to be a corrective to the lefty insanity.

    leiter is the archetypal leftist jew: aggressive, crafty, duplicitous. he rails against egalitarianism in his philosophical writing but shouts down the ‘bigotry’, ‘racism’, ‘sexism’ ….. of right-wingers. he knows egalitarianism is philosophically bogus but tenaciously defends it politically. that is because he hates Christianity and Western civilization. his ex-friends have even said so. pushing his progressivist bunk which is to civilization what AIDS is to health, has helped cover the parasitical effect of jews on the West. jews have been thrown out of nearly every country they’ve ever been in for a reason. placing the blame with all those separate countries is silly.

    • You’re either working for their side as a troll or you’re just making it easier for them. Knock it off with the ‘jew’ stuff already. There’s nothing Jewish about liberalism. Liberalism was invented by Protestants.

    • There’s nothing European about Christianity. Christianity was invented by Jews. There’s nothing Japanese about Buddhism. Buddhism was invented by Indians. There’s nothing German about philosophy. Philosophy was invented by Greeks. (These are logical fallacies.)

    • jacques is right. you are the one that has to cut out the bs. it is hard to find a single radical left-wing movement in which jews were not the big players. marxism, bolshevism, feminism, psychoanalysis, frankfurt school. they were behind the 1965 immigration act. they were behind the 1964 civil rights act. the term ‘cisgender’ that is a big part of contemporary gender insanity was coined by a frankfurt school disciple named volkmar sigusch. jews are massively over-represented in the media, especially pornography and hollywood. about a quarter of American billionaires are jews and they often use their power to push left-wing culture-subverting causes. look at george soros and black lives matter for example. jews are also responsible for neoconservatism and the disasters that have come out of it. neocon foreign policy is simply a cover for advancing the interests of israel. read the israel lobby by mearsheimer and walt. they are respected academics and not fringe nuts. one was at harvard and the other at u chicago.

      it is not a coincidence that leiter is both a freudian and a marxist. the distinctively jewish thought of marx and freud has done incalculable damage to Western life and continues to inspire academic jews who still devastate our culture. leiter openly wants to eradicate religion http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2016/08/heres-some-data-that-supports-destroying-religion-and-sending-more-people-to-college.html. he’s the clearest example of an anti-Western parasitical jew for which you could ask.

      if you doubt anything i have written then i urge you to look into it. the facts support everything i’ve said so i encourage you to research anything you don’t believe.

    • An apparent difference between Farage and myself is that I’m not obsessed about ethnicity (and race). He shares that obsession with the left (of course he can correct me if I’m wrong). Even if it were right, say, that Jews have some leftist gene which switches on for half the population, I would say, “So what”? What’s the upshot? Why go on and on about Jews when it’s the leftism that is the problem? And what’s your end goal? Kick them all out of the country for which they are citizens?

      I care about ideology. It’s also worth mentioning that the Jews being mentioned in these discussions tend to be atheists. That’s typically ignored in these types of discussions.

    • understanding that a certain ethnicity is inordinately responsible for destroying the West is an ‘obsession’. caring about ideology and irreligion isn’t? what a bunch of loaded bs.

      what’s the ‘upshot’ of blaming atheists? you want to kill or exile them all? the same nonsense can be said of your arguments.

      you miss the forest for the trees. the point isn’t that jews are very left-wing though they often are. it is that jews are disproportionately involved in movements that do great damage to the West for the sake of jewish interests. neoconservatism is extremely jewish though isn’t left-wing to most people. neocon politics attracts jews because it serves israel. like i said before read mearsheimer and walt https://www.amazon.com/Israel-Lobby-U-S-Foreign-Policy/dp/0374531501. other jews support far-left cancerous ideologies because they break up European ethnoracial solidarity that often creates hostility to jews. and for good reason. spreading atheism also helps damage European cohesion that threatens jews.

      jews are dangerous not only because they are hostile to European ways of life. they are also very intelligent and effective at realizing their social goals. the WASPs were wary of letting jews into america in the 1920’s. they set up quotas and barred jews from entering some industries and organizations to prevent jewish influence from getting out of control. none of that worked because jews are so crafty they found a way to assume power despite those restrictions.

  3. It’s not news to anyone that many professional philosophers take Christ’s name in vain. It doesn’t happen only at conference dinners or during cozy pub outings among friends; it happens in the seminar room and meetings, too. And when it does, no one seems to blink an eye.

    On the one hand, Leiter and others exhibit such glee when laying into perceived “anti-semitism.” And yet, on the other, they remain totally indifferent to the kind of nasty, blasphemous language routinely flying around the halls of the philosophy department. The hypocrisy is self-evident.

    That hypocrisy aside, it also betrays a serious philosophical inconsistency at the heart of his leftist worldview: as a moral anti-realist, who is he to criticize anyone for anything on the grounds that someone’s saying or doing something is immoral? His blog posts and public speeches often casually resort to moralist rhetorical flourishes (he calls certain views and those who hold them “wicked” or “inhuman” or “indecent” or “bigoted” or “unenlightened” or “uncivilized”), yet it’s perfectly unclear on what basis, and with what justification, he considers himself sane in criticizing others as he does.

    Thus, I agree with Leiter that “anti-semitism” is morally wrong, if by “anti-semite” we simply mean someone who hates another human being simply for being a Jew, or believes false things about another human being simply because that someone is a Jew. But I would take things even a step further: I maintain it is wrong to hate anyone. Christ says that to hate someone in your heart is to murder him. But unlike Leiter who is an atheist, I as a Christian have the rational and practical license to condemn such hatred, since I believe there is such a thing as an objective morality, which, among other things, includes the moral commandment to love others as we love ourselves, and hence not to hate them.

    In short, if there’s anyone who has the moral standing to coherently condemn genuine “anti-semitism,” it isn’t the atheist Jews of the world like Leiter, but the very Christians whose views Leiter and others like him dismiss as “prejudicial.”

    The fact that someone like Leiter thinks he has the moral authority to castigate anyone on moral grounds (while taking a swipe at Christians), is exactly why any Christian worth his salt will tell you that we are all called by God to hate this present world (1 John 2:15-17).

    It’s dark out there, folks, and the vapid hypocrisy of secular leftism isn’t enlightening anyone or anything. It’s just contributing to the rising darkness.

  4. Very interesting post.

    So, if this is a group blog, meant to represent that philosophy which is “on the right”, which I assume is defined negatively as “that which is not on the left”, and you pride yourselves on the diversity of your contributors, why not have a greater diversity of ideas represented? Sowell, Kirk, etc. are good and all, but as you yourself said, Buckley’s purges were swift and near total. They were not however all motivated by an aim to remove those who held racist, antisemitic, etc views but many were motivated by more mundane ideological and political differences between Buckley’s circle and others. The result of this? There are many more strains of thought on the right than most realize or are likely to come across represented in the common media. Buckley and his “neo-cons” inherited the conservative title in the American public mind.

    So why not open up to those others on the right? I assume along with that physical diversity comes a diversity of right wing strains of thought, correct? Will there be any intra-blog bickering between authors here or will we be treated to, as Leiter said, “a circle of self congratulation”?

    If there is already some sympathy here for the alt right, or at least willingness to ear them speak, why not let someone (or multiple someones as alt right seems to be a blanket term for a great many different strains of thought) associated with that movement, assuming they are up to snuff as a writer and thinker, post as an author? Would we ever see a monarchist worldview given voice or examination here? A reactionary one? An agrarian one? A distributist one?

    I ask not that you welcome aboard any racists, antisemites, etc simply because it must be done in the name of diversity (or, don’t let these people on board at all because their thinking is in the majority of cases quite often very shallow and based on flawed premises), but really how willing are you all to wrestle with the ideas it seems most of the leftist philosophy establishment would rather simply dismiss outright or call all sorts of nasty names than actually confront?

    Have any of you considered these things? What conclusions have you come to?

    • Carlos,

      It’s supposed to a philosophy related blog so I, myself, am personally fine with it being as broadly conservative as possible, though if someone’s ideology is far from our description in the “About” page then I don’t see how it would be appropriate for that person to be a contributor or guest blogger.

      A couple others had a hand in the post above; the Buckley comment wasn’t mine. While some NR purges were expedient, I thought (e.g.) that the Derbyshire firing was unjustified and cowardly. I’m one of the ones open to dialoguing with the alt-right as well as the left to the extent that either are open to reasoning and argumentation. It’s when arguments end and diatribes about “the Jews”, “the blacks”, etc. begin that I’d ask commenters to take their wares elsewhere.

      At any rate, I think I’m in agreement with the sentiment behind your questions. Others on the blog disagree with me. That can be healthy, esp. in philosophy.

    • Carlos Danger,
      I hope those at this blog are very willing to wrestle with the ideas that most of the leftist philosophy establishment would rather simply dismiss outright, or name call. I view this blog as a blog that defends the traditional views of the West, broadly speaking. Will we welcome views outside of classical liberalism? I think there is some room for doing so, so long as these possible contributors identify with the philosophical conservatism that began with Plato and Aristotle. *That* conservatism can take many forms.

      There are views that I am not open to considering at this blog. I would not be open to any view that has as a consequence that some persons are of less intrinsic value than others. I think there are no good arguments for such a view.

  5. These a great questions, Carlos. And I’m very much interested to see how the other contributors respond. My political views would certainly be classified as alternative right going on how many people use that terminology. So, perhaps I’ll soon be purged as a contributor to this blog much like Buckley purged immigration patriots from _National Review_. My own views don’t really fit well with the “about” section of the blog. I’m not a classical liberal nor do I think the term “conservative” is very informative or useful in describing my views. But I am on the right. It’s an interesting question whether there is now a fundamental division between folks like myself and others on the right such that a group blog where both sets of views can be discussed is no longer possible. It might be a good thing if that were possible, at least at this point, since there are few philosophical forums such as this. But perhaps the divisions are just too deep to have a collaborative project. I’m hoping to see some good, honest conversation about this in this comment thread.

    • Criticus,

      See my comment above to Carlos. I’m personally for a broad range of conservative views as long as arguments are being given appropriate to the topic being discussed. If polemics are used they shouldn’t diverge from the spirit/ideology of the About page. I’ve had no problem with what you’ve said.

      I think interesting posts you and others on the blog might consider in the near future are (a) defining the alt-right (b) defining several broadly alt-right ideologies some of which are better than others (c) strategies for alt-right/classical conservative collaboration or not (d) racism vs. tribalism.

  6. Carlos,

    As we pointed out from the beginning, this is a blog for conservative philosophers (“But we all generally identify with the tradition of philosophical conservatism that began with ancient sages like Plato and Aristotle, carried on by Christian thinkers like Augustine and Aquinas, continued through Enlightenment-inspired geniuses like Burke, Tocqueville, and the American Founders, up to economic theorists like Belloc and von Hayek and contemporary authors like Kirk, Buckley, and Sowell”). All of us, with very few exceptions (one, maybe two), identify as conservatives. Those exceptions, Ferox, for example, have been given a platform on this blog, despite the fact that many of us despise the alt-right. I myself have no sympathy whatever with it. Still, there are some views that aren’t likely to make it through our editorial process. Just as we would never post defences of left-wing views, so there are some views associated with the alt-right that aren’t likely to be expressed by contributor blog posts here. If you’re looking for an alt-right blog, you’ll have to look elsewhere.

  7. I’m sorry, but the claim that “Jacques” is not anti-Semitic, because he targets only “leftist Jews,” ignores the following remark about Jews generally: “Jews enabled the Moors to take Spain. Jews traded in Christian slaves in huge numbers through the middle ages. Jewish wealth funded the rabidly Christophobic Bolsheviks. The Talmud tells us Christ is in hell boiling in excrement. All major Jewish organizations righteously demand that we flood Christian lands with unvetted limitless numbers of Muslims while making no similar demands on Israel.”

    This is undeniably a negative description of Jews (and at one point Judaism) generally. No attempt is made to distinguish the elements of the Jewish community he’s bashing from those he isn’t, or to prevent his remarks from casting an entire ethnic group in a bad light. Indeed, what could he mean these “facts” to convey, what is he trying to persuade us of, except the pernicious role of “the Jews” in history?

    You may think it’s nevertheless defensible, because it expresses “empirical claims” the author believes to be true. But so does EVERYTHING said by any putative racists or bigots about the group they deride, from Nazi geneticists to the Rwandan Hutus to Bin Laden’s rants against Christian “crusaders.” There simply would be nothing condemnable, or even identifiable, as bigotry or group defamation if sincere belief in its empirical judgments counted as a defense. If anything is bigoted, and if bigotry is condemnable, Jacques’s remarks above score on both counts.

    You may ask, if not lying or falsity, what exactly IS wrong with bigotry, anyway? The answer is that remarks like these treat huge numbers of people, across regions and generations, as though they are a single agent, “the Jews” or “the blacks” or “the Catholics,” for example, who do various things and play certain roles in history. In that way, this group-bashing taints each one of those people – each Jew or black or Catholic or what have you – with a negative association in virtue of where or to whom they were born. Like terrorists, bigots target people simply in virtue of the community they come from.

    You might say Jacques was speaking in general terms, not saying every Jew did those things. But that misses the point: if the claim that “Jews” or “the Jews” did this or that horrible things is worth saying at all, if it says anything meaningful or interesting, then it suggests that being Jewish is at least somewhat relevant to what these various villains, who happened to be Jews, did. And that means any Jew, until proven otherwise, can be presumed to share something with the mischief makers. The negative association is warranted, if the generalization is meaningful and true. Like terrorism, then, it targets people negatively for who they are, regardless of what they, personally, did.

    Notice I’ve said nothing about the falsity or stupidity of bigotry, because I am giving you guys enough credit to see it: the idea that “the Jews” or “the Catholics” did any particular thing or caused anything is ludicrous, inasmuch as these groups don’t act in unison or coordination or even mutual knowledge of each other, and actions by their individual numbers are not necessarily done as Jews, Catholics, etc. But it’s important to distinguish the ridiculousness of claims like Jacques’s from the morally repugnant or outrageous aspects (unlike Leiter, I’m a hard-nosed metaphysical moral realist, so I DO get to say this).

    And that brings us to this blog. If bigotry is truly repugnant or outrageous, and it is expressed at your dinner table or is scrawled on your bulletin board, say, you’re expected to act outraged or repulsed by it. True, you don’t have an obligation to do so; but we all have a right, in turn, and an epistemic warrant, to read into it when you fail to be disgusted. That kind of silence speaks volumes.

    • Thanks for this. I’m a contributor here and I agree with you. I don’t believe that the defence in this post is adequate.

    • Thank you Conservatrarian. Your reply and your other comments provide much-needed hope and reassurance.

    • In fairness to the blog, if you read through the comments, many contributors have been arguing against this poison. I commend my own comments to you.

    • Thanks for the comment. I didn’t say that Jacques was not (or was) anti-Semitic. I was remarking on whether what he *said* is an anti-Semitic remark, and I placed more emphasis on the qualifying remark about leftist-Jews in the two passages quoted by Leiter than you did. “Jews” then in what follows is short for “leftist-Jews” or a large segment of “bad Jews”.

      Now maybe that’s wrong. I don’t suspect we can know without knowing more about Jacques and what he thinks and what he intended. There wasn’t much else to go on in that post that Leiter was referring to. And unlike Leftists, I don’t possess special divinelike insight into the souls of racists and anti-Semites so I proceed with caution in labeling.

      Perhaps more later. I haven’t had much time to comment in the last couple days.

    • Thanks for the clarification AR-15. But just so you know, I, too, was going solely by the text of Jacques’s original comment, which I read differently. To me, the stuff about Spain, slave trading and the Talmud isn’t about leftists, and “Jews” there is not shorthand for “leftist Jews.” For one thing, they go back to times that predate the advent of Leftism in the world. If anything, Jacques seems to be going in the other direction, suggesting that the (partial) Jewish attraction to the Left stems from the broader things he’s claiming about Jews in general. This is borne out by his subsequent comments, but I think it’s in the original, too.

      My own remarks were not meant to debate his claims (I’m happy to do that separately) but to point out their moral repugnance. I don’t believe I need to rehearse with you why it’s repugnant to smear a minority group or race generally – though Jacques himself needs a refresher – even when the smearer allows that some of the members are “good ones.” Anyway I tried to answer that in my original comment. My only further point was that I would have expected the blog hosts to react as though a swastika were sprayed on their walls, or an ugly epithet uttered at their dinner tables. At least one or two did, which leaves me not quite giving up…

    • Jared,
      People often complain that humans are harming the planet by polluting. Or that whites stole land from native Indians. Or that liberals are jerks. Etc. Do you think it’s reasonable to object that _not every single_ human pollutes, not every single white stole land, not every liberal is a jerk?

      It goes without saying that NAXALT. Even Hitler thought there were good Jews. I went on in that same thread to point out that I have no problem with Jews per se or in all cases. So I plainly do distinguish the bad element from others. (Pretty big bad element though.) Your interpretation is really bad.

      It would be absurd to claim we should never make _any_ negative claims about groups or types in general, and absurd to interpret all such claims as strict universal generalizations. Come on. A little charity and common sense. But the what exactly is mistaken or “bigoted” in the empirical claims above, when interpreted reasonably? I think you have nothing and that’s why you just call names and label.

    • Was being German “at least somewhat relevant” to what Nazis wanted and did? Was being Christian somewhat relevant to leading a Jew hating pogrom? I imagine you have no problem admitting that such facts are relevant. Obviously the Jews who betrayed Spain did so in part because they were Jews, hence not as identified with Spain as Spaniards and Christians. You are the bigot: you recognize ethnic motivation in others but pretend your own hyperethnocentric group is better than that.

  8. “the ridiculousness of claims like Jacques’s”

    Jared, I would like to hear you explain why such claims are ridiculous–not just false, not just controversial, but _ridiculous_ claims. Is it ridiculous to claim that Jews betrayed Spain to the Moors, or that they traded in Christian slaves for a long time in huge numbers? Or that the most poisonous leftist movements such as Bolshevism were very heavily Jewish despite Jews being tiny minorities in those societies? Because as far as I know these things are just true. Or is your view rather that, while all this may well be true, it would be ridiculous to think that it tells us anything at all about general trends and tendencies in the Jewish community? Please explain. Otherwise you’re just like the leftists who dismiss all claims about black crime rates as “racism” (and “ridiculous”, etc.) without making any arguments.

  9. Jared wrote: ” if it says anything meaningful or interesting, then it suggests that being Jewish is at least somewhat relevant to what these various villains, who happened to be Jews, did. And that means any Jew, until proven otherwise, can be presumed to share something with the mischief makers. ”

    Sorry friend but you seem to be tautologous. Yes all whites share something with 19th century mischief making slavers. They are white.

    And being white was relevant to being a slaver. Bad whites.

    But, of course there were many white abolitionists too, that are not blameworthy.

    Yet it is obviously true to say generally whites enslaved blacks.

    Jacques seems cleverer than the rest of you so far. He is merely turning the dialectic of liberalism (classical and cocktail) back on itself.

    • You’re going to have to do better than that, Cowboy.

      For starters, there’s your example: “being white was relevant to being a slaver.” Really? In what way? That sense of “relevant” is super thin, man. Almost everything that’s necessarily true of slavers would count, on that construal, which obviously isn’t mine.

      But far more importantly, my response wasn’t to claims about Jews to which their Jewishness happened to be salient. It was to claims – like Jacques’s list, beginning with the Moors – whose VERY POINT was that salience.

      Consider these two statements, drawn from an example I heard on talk radio:
      (1) “Janet, who happens to be Irish, is a bad driver.”
      (2) “Bad driving has increased wherever large numbers of drivers are Irish.”

      Can you see the difference between the two types of claims? The second is making the point that Irishness is salient for bad driving, even if it doesn’t imply (as if that matters) that every Irish driver is bad. Can you also see why ANY Irish person has reason to object to (2), but no (1), even if it’s not about him, in particular, and even if there are “good Irish” drivers?

    • Jared you said: “For starters, there’s your example: “being white was relevant to being a slaver.” Really? In what way? That sense of “relevant” is super thin, man. Almost everything that’s necessarily true of slavers would count, on that construal, which obviously isn’t mine.”

      Because slavery in the Americas followed racial lines. It’s not like you would know Johnson is a slave, and wonder whether his owner is white or black, though there was a small amount of black ownership, the laws supporting slavery were made by whites, etc. Contrast this with Roman or Greek slavery which was not racially based. Are you seriously saying it would have made sense to sense to say Johnson is a slave and he just happens to be owned by a white man? That would make a good comedy routine.

      Actually many of my Asian students agree rightly or wrongly with (the truth of) the claim that Asians are bad drivers. Many Jewish comics and writers make fun of their ethnic foibles. Michael Krasny just came out with a new book of Jewish jokes. Lots of black comedians riff on the criminal association in a way that makes clear they _agree_ with the characterization. So many groups do not take particular offense when they know or think these characterizations are true.

      And what does taking offense have to do with the truth? Are you sure you are not overly PC whipped?

  10. Jared,
    Reasonable Irish people wouldn’t object to 2 if it were demonstrably true. Just as reasonable white people don’t object to obvious truths about white misdeeds and the role of white identity and bigotry in many of those. Why can’t Jews be reasonable about the bad tendencies of their own group? Actually many are. See Lawrence Auster on Jewish behavior, for example. Reasonable. Every group has positive and negative traits, even yours.

    Question: would it be unreasonable for Jews to affirm

    (3) Wherever there are lots of Jews you find scholarship, science, activism on behalf of downtrodden minorities?

    Because lots of Jews seem to take pride in such claims, seem happy to acknowledge the positive tendencies of their group–taking these to reflect well on them as members. I find that reasonable enough. You?

  11. Jacques, this “dialogue” is surreal, like you’re telling a guy, “F**k your mother, she’s a whore anyway,” and then expecting him to debate, or even consider, the merits of the empirical claim embedded therein (“Can you show she’s not a whore? No? Aha! No argument, just as I thought!!”).

    But I’ll pretend to ignore that for the moment, taking the end of your comment in isolation.

    I agree with you that all Jews, Blacks, etc. have reason to respond positively to praise about their group in general, even when it’s not universal. For the same reason, you should agree with me that they all reasonably react negatively to slander about their group in general (e.g. “higher crime rates,” “less loyal to country,” what have you, etc.), even if not universal.

    The difference is that there’s nothing terribly wrong with praising someone just because of who his parents are, but there’s a LOT wrong with defaming him for the same. Being considered part of a group that’s likelier to commit crime, or betray one’s countrymen, is a harm – one that has historically been lethal – and it is wrong to harm innocent people simply because of their birth. That is at least one reason, though NOT the only one, that defaming a race or ethnic group is especially wrong, even if we grant, just for the sake of argument, that the defamation be accurate. Like terrorism, it harms people solely in virtue of their unchosen, and irreversible, identities.

    I suspect many bigots agree with me, but just don’t care, inasmuch as it isn’t their own innocent children whose safety their group defamation is (knowingly, bloodlustingly) risking.

    • Your comments about “defamation”, “slander” and bigotry presuppose that the relevant empirical claims are false (and ridiculous). Saying or presupposng that p is false isn’t an argument against p.

      If your mother really was a whore, as some mothers are, it wouldn’t be slander to say so. I’m sure your mom is a nice lady.

      But blacks really do have very high crime rates. And Jews really do tend to be lesd loyal to the gentile countries where they live. At least, that’s what all our evidence indicates. It’s surreal that you don’t allow even the possibiltu that these things are true, and think you can dismiss them without argument as mere bigotry.

    • I should open by making clear that I am saying this as someone who thinks Jacques goes over the top and needs to tone it down. But, at this stage, the bigger danger is that the moderators cave to the demands for censorship.

      ” Being considered part of a group that’s likelier to commit crime, or betray one’s countrymen, is a harm – one that has historically been lethal – and it is wrong to harm innocent people simply because of their birth.”

      I’m going to have to contest this. First, there is no defamation going on here at all, unless you want to argue that any negative generalization directed at a group of people is inherently derogatory. I’m sorry, but we’ve been playing that game for decades now. I have no sympathy with the view that honest discussion is morally off limits when it paints minorities in a bad light. If minorities behave badly then the truth will be unflattering, but I am tired of it being demanded of me that I engage in willful blindness and make-believe because Hitler.

      It is either generally true that blacks commit more crime than other ethnic groups or it isn’t. It is either generally true that leftist Jews are over represented in the most vicious and destructive elements of the cultural left or it isn’t. We are talking about social reality, and I am tired of leftists and PC-whipped conservatives demanding that we either not talk about it at all or go around pretending that it is something other than what it really is.

      High minded rhetoric about harming individuals by noticing things about them other than their individuality simply doesn’t fly anymore. You are trying to criminalize the possession of information about groups of people that is highly relevant to a complete grasp of an unfolding social reality that we have no choice but to negotiate. By trying to force us to self-censor and not even consider these kinds of claims, what are you trying to do is deprive us of demographically and politically vital information; truncating the space of thoughts so that we cannot or will not notice certain social patterns that are relevant to practical and political deliberation.

      The left always bleats about wanting to have an “honest conversation” about this and that, and now by jove they finally have one. And now that they see that it isn’t going to be the one-sided harangue they were spoiling for, they want to shut it down and declare it off limits. Sorry, but in my view this kind of frank talk cannot and should not be off limits.

    • I don’t think Jacques goes over the top or should tone it down at all. But I very much like what you said after that. Great comment.

    • “You are trying to criminalize the possession of information about groups of people that is highly relevant to a complete grasp of an unfolding social reality that we have no choice but to negotiate. By trying to force us to self-censor….”

      Not so; I am not suggesting anything be criminalized or censored. I have merely described what’s wrong with bigoted claims, why they’re harmful and therefore should not be advanced, all else equal.

      Of course people should be FREE to advance them, like giving the finger to passing nuns, but there are reasons they shouldn’t do it anyway, all else equal. Specifically: these claims harm people merely because of their irreversible, born identities. You find yourself suspected of being likelier, all else equal, to rob a bank or spy on your country simply because of some biological history you can NEVER change. And that’s a problem.

      Still, as with anything that’s wrong or harmful, you could argue that there are countervailing wrongs in NOT advancing these claims. Maybe it’s vital to our societal well-being that we publicly express and take seriously EVERY single empirical possibility, including that anyone whose skin is a certain shade or darker is, all else equal, likelier to be criminal. Or that every Jewish person is, all else equal, likelier to give away state secrets. I certainly know the harms inflicted by these “empirical” stances; that needs no demonstration. But maybe you can show me benefits to research and policy that outweigh them, and the moral grounds for subjecting them to such a balance. Otherwise, I suggest we focus on the billions of other scientific data and hypotheses that don’t link dangerous and expulsion-worthy “tendencies” to one’s genes or skin color.

      Finally, as an aside, which of Jacques’s claims (below) do you consider merely “over the top” and in need of “toning down”?

      ”Jews really do tend to be less loyal to the gentile countries where they live.”

      “I have no problem with Jews per se or in all cases. I plainly do distinguish the bad element from others. (Pretty big bad element though.) ” [emphasis added]

      “My view is that Jews, like most other groups, often act for ethnocentric reasons, and will often do some pretty nasty stuff in order to pursue what they take to be the interests of their extended families and communities, etc.” [emphasis added]

      Maybe we disagree that there is such a thing as bigotry or racism, or that it’s all that bad, but if we don’t – is there any reason these remarks don’t count?

  12. Neocon Cowboy,

    I agree being offended shouldn’t count for much in the way of argument. We’re way too wussy these days about these sorts of things.

    For example, I wouldn’t be too bothered if I were called a bad driver, or a drunk, or big-nosed, or hot-tempered, or too good at math, or too bad at English, or cheap, etc., because of my ethnicity. My friends of different ethnic groups and nationalities often poke fun at me and themselves along such lines. And we can take it.

    But nobody’s ever been lynched, shoved in an oven, or collectively interned or deported because of being thought a lush, a math geek, a neurotic or a bad driver. And they never will. But this sort of thing HAS happened, often and recently (to Asians, Blacks and Jews, at least), because too many people bought into the very group defamation that Jacques expresses here, in precisely the words he uses. And he well knows it, too.

    So yeah, it matters just how serious and defamatory the bigotry is. Accusing a group of being a historically treacherous or dangerous presence in your country — the Jacques du jour on this blog — is just a wee bit different from making fun of their pronunciation.

  13. Jared, if Jacques is right about the empirical claims you dismiss as defamatory, then there are lots of costs in not acknowledging them, too. The naïve view that all groups are equally assimilable and loyal to their host countries has imposed great costs in Europe, and could impose great costs here, too. So there are consequences of not assessing and acknowledging national loyalties among groups too, just as there have been and might be in over -emphasizing them. Regarding Jewish loyalties, if General Groves, for example, had been a little more wary, he might have tightened down the screws at Los Alamos, and prevented or greatly impeded the Soviet Union’s development of nuclear weapons. The Rosenberg’s would not have been able to betray their host country.

    Similarly, the denial mostly by liberals of the social sciences, and the inconvenient truths of black crime, fatherless families and the IQ gap, imposes great social costs for blacks and everyone else, because blame, policies and resources are misdirected. For example, Clinton wants a national program to train cops not to be biased in response to perceived disproportions in violent contacts between blacks and police, when the disproportion is easily explained by the simple fact that blacks commit more crimes. Instead of silly pc programs, the money could be spent to help black families stay together. Liberal social policies based on falsehoods has led to more black deaths at the hands of other blacks than all the lynchings in the South put together.

    Millions of dollars are wasted in schools on special programs to close the educational gap; they have not worked, and the best science on intelligence and IQ shows they will not work. The money could be better spent to help these groups in other ways.

    So, if your argument is just about the consequences of holding a belief, well that cuts both ways. Presently I see no dangers of ovens and internments, but I do see lots dangers looming in denying these truths, not as dramatic, but insidious and just as destructive.

  14. ” Being considered part of a group that’s likelier to commit crime, or betray one’s countrymen, is a harm – one that has historically been lethal – and it is wrong to harm innocent people simply because of their birth.”

    Jared, that s a very odd thing to say. I guess you think you should never give any negative feedback to people, because it harms them. That is just silly. I have improved myself greatly by others who have criticized my behavior. It hurts sometimes, but I am glad they did it. And the same applies to groups. There are programs in black schools that try to discourage gang membership, based on the truth that the group is especially prone to gangs, drugs and crime. I guess we should shut those down, because it will hurt the feelings of the some of the kids, who are being “stereotyped.”

  15. SCC and NC,
    Thank you for your common sense and for helping me out here.

    SCC: You may be right I’ve gone a little over the top. It’s understandable irritation with the incredible arrogance and faux naivete of leftist Jews like Jason Stanley and now Jared. These guys pretend they have absolutely no idea–just no idea at all–how anyone could ever say anything negative about their group. It’s so blindingly obvious that they’re not really on our side, and many explicitly say so, like Stanley–yes, I know, I know NAXALT–but they act as if the very idea is “ridiculous”. It’s an insult to our intelligence. Gentiles aren’t _that_ dumb guys. Blacks aren’t either; most of them know the score.

    For the record, I have no animosity toward anyone simply because of their race or ethnicity and I regard such animosity as stupid and evil. (One reason I dislike traditional Judaism is that it seems to be largely centred on such animosity.) I don’t care at all whether Jews or Judaism continue to exist; if that’s what they want, good for them. I think many Jews could be (and are) decent members of western societies who don’t seek to harm the majority. How pathetic that this needs saying ever, anywhere, let alone on a philosophy site.

    My so-called “anti-semitism” is purely defensive and largely dialectical. If people like Stanley woild back the fuck off in their obnoxious ethnic aggression I couldn’t care less how many Bolsheviks were Jewish. But they won’t, so it makes sense for white guys (and girls) to push back, give them a taste of their own medicine. Imagine the chutzpah of Stanley complaining about “white privilege”. What a joke it all is.

    But in order for us to get along there has to be some basic honesty and everyone needs to stop singling out non-Jewish whites for racial hate and aggression; everyone needs to admit the faults of their own group along with its virtues. Or else just drop the topoc altogether–leave us non-Jewish whites alone. The present system where white identity is purely negative and every other purely positive has to be destroyed. And since Jews had a big role in creating the system they should be doing more to dismantle it. If they refuse to acknowledge any of this, that tells us something very important about them. I guess time will tell, and soon.

  16. Neocon Cowboy,

    For the love of God and for the last time – the problem is NOT that it’s offensive or insulting. There are grave TANGIBLE, PHYSICAL harms and risks to being treated as likelier to commit crimes, or betray your country, simply because of being born to certain parents. History provides vivid, recent examples of those harms. And it’s wrong to impose serious, life-risking harm on people simply because of their blood, genes or born identities. That’s all I’m saying. Let people grow up and earn their own suspicion or praise based on their own, personal actions.

    Jacques (if different from NC),

    Again, I am NOT presupposing that the group defamation is false. I’m not even discussing that, and have said nothing to which that is even relevant, much less presupposed.

    For all I’m arguing here, it could be that, e.g., having melanin in your skin makes you more likely to commit a crime, or having Jewish genes or a circumcised penis makes you more likely to betray your country. These are biological or historical claims that I am, for now, leaving to biologists and historians. Or other empirical researchers.

    I’ve confined myself here, on this philosophical blog, to a purely moral argument against harming people because of their blood or birth. Is that clear now?

  17. “I am NOT presupposing that the group defamation is false. I’m not even discussing that, and have said nothing to which that is even relevant, much less presupposed.”

    Jared, in normal human life, saying that a claim C is “ridiculous”, “slander”, “bigotry” or “defamation” just does commit the speaker to _at least_ holding that C is false. For example, no normal person would sincerely say any of the following things:

    i. “The claim that all Jews are dishonest is bigotry, though it is a well known fact that all Jews are indeed dishonest.”
    ii. “It’s ridiculous to claim that black have higher crime rates than whites, although it’s also true that blacks do have higher crime rates than whites.”
    iii. “Jones slandered and defamed Smith when he accused him of beating his wife. But Smith did beat his wife, and Jones did have excellent grounds for making those true, slanderous and defamatory statements.”

    I don’t think you would say any of these weird incoherent things either. You said my empirical claims are ridiculous, slanderous, bigoted, etc. On planet Earth saying that kind of thing is considered “relevant” to the truth or plausibility of the empirical claims in question.

  18. Jared writes:

    “For all I’m arguing here, it could be that, e.g., having melanin in your skin makes you more likely to commit a crime, or having Jewish genes or a circumcised penis makes you more likely to betray your country. These are biological or historical claims that I am, for now, leaving to biologists and historians. Or other empirical researchers… I’ve confined myself here, on this philosophical blog, to a purely moral argument against harming people because of their blood or birth.”

    How can anyone make a “purely moral argument” with real-world social and political implications while having no opinion about relevant empirical facts? For example, how could you know that it’s wrong to “harm people because of their blood or birth” unless you know, at least, that blood and birth have no relation to facts about which people _deserve_ to be harmed or which people are doing so much harm _to others_ that those others are entitled to harm them in self-defense? You seem very confused about how moral arguments of this kind work.

    Just to illustrate. Imagine that every single Ojibway has some genetic trait T such that all Ts regularly go on berserk child-raping rampages. Imagine that no other human being ever does this. Your view appears to be that _even if this were actually true of Ojibways_ there would be a “purely moral argument” against warning others that Ojibways are prone to child-raping rampages. Is that really your view? Seems totally ridiculous.

    Or at least, your view seems to be that it would be morally wrong to warn others _if_ Ojibways had recently been harmed somehow because others had some negative views of them. And even if those negative views were entirely correct. Maybe a bunch of non-Ojibways got really mad about all the Ojibway child-rapists and killed a bunch of them, for example. For you, that would then make it morally wrong for anyone now to notify others that Ojibways are all child-rapists? When they see non-Ojibways with little kids moving into an Ojibway town, they have a moral duty _not to tell them_ that their kids are going to be raped unless they leave right now? This is really stupid. Obviously it’s justifiable to tell them, because the harms the Ojibways are doing to innocent others are so serious that, in order to prevent those harms, we can morally do a _lot_ of harm to the Ojibways. But it depends on empirical facts.

    So your view is doubly irrational. It’s false that it’s always wrong to cause harm to people because of “blood or birth”. It may be morally acceptable or even obligatory in some situations, and it actually has been in many cases (though not the Ojibway one). And any reasonable way of deciding whether such harms are acceptable or not in a given situation will depend on empirical facts which you bizarrely take to be irrelevant.

    Here’s how your Nazi counterpart would argue:

    “Sure, it may be that most Jews are perfectly fine decent people who don’t actually wish to harm anyone, who have never done anything to harm Aryans. It may be that Aryans don’t even exist, or that if they do exist, they’re not a master race but a slave race; maybe they should be enslaved forever to Jews, for example. These are all just empirical claims that I leave to empirical researchers. I’m not even _discussing_ these matters, or saying anything that is even _relevant_ to these matters. I’m just making the _purely moral_ argument in support of harming Jews on the basis of their blood and birth, and helping Aryans on the basis of their blood and birth.”

    This reasoning is really terrible, right? Maybe you can explain to me how it differs in a principled way from yours.

    • You’re born 100 years from now in the US, a struggling white minority, and you find yourself constantly treated suspiciously by non-whites, often trailed by cops, neighborhood watch and the like, with taunts of: “you want to enslave or subjugate me, right? Or shoot me without even looking? Or lynch me? That’s what you people do. I have proof.”

      Do you really think, in such a scenario, you’d have NO legitimate grievance that, ‘Hey, I didn’t do any of those things. I wasn’t even born!” Unlike your Ojibways, who you claim are ALL rapists, you really WOULD BE innocent of their charge of “tending towards lynching,” at least so far. No complaint?

      And can you not see — for the nth time — that if you DID have such a grievance, it would NOT depend on the empirical truth of the non-white’s charges about “you people”? You could still complain, “I didn’t do any of that” even if the “that” were true of whites generally, in history?? Is this thought really so incomprehensible??

      Now, yes, yes, yes, of course, of course: to say it’s wrong to phi doesn’t specify whether it’s pro tanto wrong, or all-things-considered, everywhere, absolutely wrong. If, say, the fate of the entire human race hung on harming newborn blacks or Jews this way, by branding them likely criminals or traitors, or if [insert your undergrad hypothetical of choice here] , then of course you may have an excuse to do it anyway. Just as there can be excuses for lying, stealing, promise-breaking and a dozens of other things that are wrong. But that doesn’t make them not wrong, taken in themselves.

      As I implied earlier, if you’re still just hung up on debating the empirical merit of “your mother’s a whore,” or “Thse F*king blacks,” its equivalents, fine, but I’m not playing.

    • Hi Jared,
      You’re the perfect foil. Your responses nicely exemplify every mistake of leftists on race, etc. This is fun, and it may be instructive. I’m going to tackle a few different points that I take you to be making. First your white minority story:

      Maybe you’re imagining a future where (F1) some whites are being bothered by cops (or whatever) because of truths about what other whites did in the remote past.

      Sure, that would probably be morally objectionable. But how is it relevant?

      I never said that _any_ unflattering empirical truth about some group G justifies others in doing _every_ kind of “harm” or unpleasantness to arbitrary Gs. I merely claimed that some empirical truths do justify some such “harms”, at least in some circumstances.

      You apparently deny that claim of mine in saying that any empirical facts about blacks or Jews are irrelevant to your “purely moral” (i.e., wholly non-empirical?) argument against “harming” anyone for racial reasons. (I still would like to hear how such facts are equally irrelevant to the question of whether my claims are “ridiculous”, “bigotry”, “slander”, etc. But we can drop that if you like.) So my Ojibway story is a counter-example to that extreme claim of yours. And you seem to agree that in _that_ empirically possible situation some “harms” against Ojibways would be okay, even though they’re not okay in the actual empirical situation. So on that point, case closed: we agree that empirical facts are sometimes relevant to moral judgments about how to treat people, whether to cause harm to them on racial grounds, etc.

      But now consider a future where (F2) the white minority really are _at that time_ enslaving, lynching and shooting non-whites for no good reason. Maybe it’s only a minority of the white minority doing that–20% of them, perhaps, but they’re doing a _lot_ of this really bad stuff, and far more of it than any other identifiable group. Well, in that case it seems entirely right that the cops will be on the lookout for whites, that they’ll “profile” whites, that non-whites will tend to be wary around whites, that non-whites just won’t _like_ whites, etc. How could any reasonable person object to this on “purely moral” grounds, and despite conceding that whites really are doing all this terrible stuff?

      A minor point: I don’t think it would be okay for non-whites to “taunt” arbitrary whites even in this situation, or lynch them or whatever. But I never suggested that whites should taunt or insult arbitrary blacks or Jews (or anyone else) simply on the grounds that they are members of a group with some negative traits. So that part of your story is a faulty analogue. But the other parts are proper analogues of the white attitudes and behaviors I take to be justified in the actual world, now, with respect to some non-white groups. Again, the empirical facts are important here. So if you think blacks really _don’t_ have far higher crime rates than whites, you could reasonably object to these attitudes and behaviors. But I don’t see how you can object _without_ disputing my empirical claims.

    • “Just as there can be excuses for lying, stealing, promise-breaking and a dozens of other things that are wrong. But that doesn’t make them not wrong, taken in themselves.”

      You’re saying it’s intrinsically wrong to make negative judgments about arbitrary members of a race R on the basis of (true) generalizations about Rs. In other words, those judgments might be _excusable_ under certain circumstances. (When they’re true, and really important?) But they’re still wrong in and of themselves. Please explain to me how stating an empirical fact about some group is relevantly similar to lying or stealing or whatever. Lying and stealing are intrinsically wrong (arguably) because these are actions that in their very nature involve a violation of a moral principle, a disrespect for persons, or something like that. In what way am I doing anything like _that_ when I simply assert an unflattering truth about some group on the basis of excellent evidence? It’s just true that blacks have very high crime rates, 8-10x the white rate. And it just does follow from that truth that, other things being equal, an arbitrary black person is more likely than an arbitrary white person to be a criminal. How could there be something _intrinsically_ immoral about stating these truths?

      In fact your own “moral argument” against my stating such truths depends essentially on _extrinsic_ empirical considerations. For example you think it’s really important that, as it happens, certain groups have sometimes been harmed somehow in part because of people making certain negative statements about them, etc. Obviously these kinds of facts are not intrinsic to the act of judging or publicly stating unflattering truths about a group (e.g., “branding them likely criminals or traitors”). So your position now seems not only implausible in certain respects but incoherent: you’re relying on purely contingent empirical premises to argue that a certain kind of speech act is intrinsically wrong, i.e., wrong regardless of any empirical contingencies.

      Now I think what you _should_ say is that the wrong is not intrinsic but (as you did say before) it depends in part on certain empirical facts about the likelihood that my statements will lead to pogroms or whatever. But then if you opt for that coherent strategy you can’t claim that all empirical truths are irrelevant. The pogroms might be justifiable if Jewish behavior is sufficiently harmful or menacing to others. (No, I’m not calling for pogroms. Relax.) At some point you’re going to have to actually address the relevant empirical claims I’m making head on–you’re going to have to _deny_ that Jews on the whole have displayed these very disturbing attitudes and behaviors. And I can see why you don’t want to do that, why you’ll go to such extremes to pretend that all such empirical questions are just not worth looking into. Because once we really get into that stuff you’re really screwed 🙂

  19. Is it me, or do Jared’s complaints here result in rendering all criminologists who concern themselves with the rates at which different races commit crime hateful racist bigots who are engaging in an activity that will “harm” groups?

    • Um, not sure if this is directed at or about me, but anyway: yes it’s you, Charles. Or rather, I don’t think any *specific* criminologist conclusions about who committed certain crimes at a certain time are bigoted, even if it turns out blacks did more of them than whites. The claim, for example, that most shtetl burglaries were committed by Jews is not bigoted, either. What makes claims like Jacques’s bigoted is the further point that blacks (or whoever) tend, through history, to be more likely to commit crimes. THAT, unlike tallying specific crime stats, makes a claim about *future* black people — about the group and its general tendencies, timelessly considered. And yeah, I’ll say it’s a harm to be tagged as likelier than others to become a criminal, just for being born darker. Is it just me?

    • “What makes claims like Jacques’s bigoted is the further point that blacks (or whoever) tend, through history, to be more likely to commit crimes. THAT, unlike tallying specific crime stats, makes a claim about *future* black people — about the group and its general tendencies, timelessly considered. And yeah, I’ll say it’s a harm to be tagged as likelier than others to become a criminal, just for being born darker. Is it just me?”

      Have you considered that there are biological reasons for believing that blacks (or whoever) are in fact more likely to commit crime *in the future* than, say, Asians? Blacks, for example, have higher average testosterone than other races, and we know that testosterone is somehow related to likelihood to commit crime (testosterone helps explain, for example, why men commit so much more crime than women). Blacks on average also are less able to delay gratification than, e.g., whites, and, very plausibly, this is also related to likelihood to commit crime. IQ also seems to be related to crime, and blacks on average have a lower IQ than whites or Asians. All of these things—IQ, ability to delay gratification, levels of testosterone—are to a very large extent genetically determined and inheritable. So there really is a reason to believe that future black people will continue to engage in more crime, on average, than whites or Asians. (Don’t blame me for these genetic differences, by the way—blame nature; as desirable as our egalitarian fantasies may be, their desirability does not make them true.)

  20. Jared, says “For the love of God and for the last time – the problem is NOT that it’s offensive or insulting. There are grave TANGIBLE, PHYSICAL harms and risks to being treated as likelier to commit crimes… Let people grow up and earn their own suspicion or praise based on their own, personal actions.”

    Well now you are just repeating yourself and ignoring rebuttals. In my rebuttal I said there were great costs, and tangible harm in _not_ acknowledging factual differences among groups, too. But you seem to just ignore those for some reason. There are great risks of tangible and physical harm in _not_ making judgments about groups who are more likely to commit crimes – for example using limited resources to scrutinize Norwegian grandmothers as closely as young Syrian males at airports, or putting just as many police in white suburbs of a city as in black urban centers on the silly notion that you should not judge ethnic group tendencies, but only make judgments about individuals. Right. By then it is often too late.

    I think you have probably just been very lucky that you have not been eliminated from the gene pool. If you had to choose a dark alley in Chicago, say West Englewood or something, would it be the one with a bunch of young black males or the one with a bunch of white Mormons or old swedish grandmothers? I guess you would flip a coin, after all, you should only suspect or praise people “based on their own, personal actions.” How ridiculous is that, for the love of God 😉

  21. “What makes claims like Jacques’s bigoted is the further point that blacks (or whoever) tend, through history, to be more likely to commit crimes. THAT, unlike tallying specific crime stats, makes a claim about *future* black people — about the group and its general tendencies, timelessly considered. And yeah, I’ll say it’s a harm to be tagged as likelier than others to become a criminal, just for being born darker. Is it just me?”

    I think it is just you, Jared :-). Look. Jacques is not saying that. Tendencies, genetic or otherwise are not timeless. You are constructing an essentialist straw man. But if groups do have certain genetically predispositions, it is likely they will have those for quite a while, long enough to be relevant in discussing social and political policy. Also, the fact that groups or individuals have specific genetic dispositions does not mean these dispositions cannot be ameliorated or channeled into more constructive pursuits or activities.

  22. “And can you not see — for the nth time — that if you DID have such a grievance, it would NOT depend on the empirical truth of the non-white’s charges about “you people”? You could still complain, “I didn’t do any of that” even if the “that” were true of whites generally, in history?? Is this thought really so incomprehensible??”

    Jared, it was reported the neighbors of the San Bernardino terrorists were suspicious of the comings and goings of “the Muslims” next door but were afraid to say anything because of your reasoning here. What is worse in your view, hurting someone’s feelings by profiling them, or 14 dead American citizens?

    • Sorry, I have nothing snappy or confident to say about San Bernardino, a site I’ve visited. It’s a difficult case, because Wahhabi and Salafi Muslims – unlike other Muslims – can be dangerous, just in virtue of being Wahhabis or Salafis. One difference, which may be worth exploring, is that Wahhabism isn’t an unchosen and irreversible feature of one’s biological past, like skin color or genes. You can embrace it or renounce it. That said, it is a form of communal identity, and some are born into it. And if you profile and spy on them, and they turn out to be innocent, they may have a good case against you (not just legally, I mean). So I don’t know about this one, especially if I’m talking to victims’ families… Wish I had more.

    • Again regarding your white minority scenario:

      “if you DID have such a grievance, it would NOT depend on the empirical truth of the non-white’s charges about ‘you people’? You could still complain, ‘I didn’t do any of that’ even if the ‘that’ were true of whites generally, in history?”

      If the non-white’s charge was simply that whites in the past tended to do certain bad things to non-whites, the complaint that I personally didn’t do those things would not be a rational reply to that charge. Imagine my “grievance” is that it’s not fair that cops trail me, that people fear me and don’t like me, etc. Well, that’s a stupid grievance IF in reality whites like me are responsible for a vastly disproportionate amount of really evil behavior victimizing non-whites. A reasonable white person–someone who wasn’t a bigot–would realize that it’s the shitty behavior of so many people in his own group that provokes these understandable responses from others, that _they_ are to blame and not the others who are just being rational and prudential in the face of a very troublesome hostile minority.

      If instead the non-white’s charge was that every single white person, even now, did certain bad things that only some whites in the past actually did, the complaint that I personally didn’t do those things would be a rational complaint. But my charges against blacks and Jews and others are (obviously) not like that second charge against whites. Where do you find me saying or implying or suggesting that all Jews right now have starved Ukrainians or sent people to the gulag? An individual Jew who complains “But I didn’t do any of that” would be committing some kind of straw man fallacy.

      In reality, we can safely assume that not one single Jewish person is harmed in any real way by my stating certain unflattering facts about Jews on a philosophy blog. (Hurt feelings are not real harms.) Nor is any Jewish person particularly _likely_ to face any real harm as a result of my doing that. But let’s just pretend that there is some _risk_ that some Jewish person may be somehow “harmed” as a result of my statements. Would that really seem to you to make it morally wrong for me to say these things, even if they’re true and even if they’re directly relevant to some very important moral-political problems facing our society? Or, even more bizarre–it seems to you that it’s wrong for _other_ people to simply allow me to say these things on their blog? If that’s really what you think there’s not enough common ground for us to have a rational discussion.

      Reading Marx played some role in causing Lenin and Pol Pot and Mao and their minions to carry out their mass murders and terrors. Is it wrong for professors to let their students read Marx, knowing that in the very recent past millions of people have been murdered and terrorized as a result of Marxist claims? I don’t see how your “purely moral” objection to my stating (or others’ allowing me to state) unflattering facts about blacks or Jews is any different from the absurd argument that it’s wrong to let people read Marx because in the past Marxist claims had something to do with harming people.

  23. Jacques, I’m glad you’re enjoying yourself. You say: “I imagine my ‘grievance’ is that it’s not fair that cops trail me, that people fear me and don’t like me, etc. Well, that’s a stupid grievance IF in reality whites like me are responsible for a vastly disproportionate amount of really evil behavior victimizing non-whites.”

    No it isn’t, as long as you, personally, didn’t do any of those behaviors, and the actual white perpetrators never consult or coordinate or answer to you. You’re just you, innocent and blameless but with a certain skin color that others share. And you’re being followed and shunned, undeservedly.

    I think that’s wrong – intentionally harming someone who did nothing to merit or invite the harm – in the same way that lying, stealing and promise-breaking is wrong. You may think harming the innocent, unlike those other examples, is entirely neutral in itself, and even in a vacuum needs no apology or defense. On your view, perhaps, it doesn’t even make sense to say “I’m harming the innocent, BUT in this case…” There need be no “buts.” “I’m harming an innocent,” in your view, would be like saying “I’m driving my car.” Morally neutral.
    Fine, that’s a very basic moral difference between us, about foundational premises, where argument may have to stop.

    But if I’m right about that moral claim, and if – as things turn out – the public stance that, e.g., ‘Dothrakis are likelier to commit crime’ harms the innocent (innocent Dothrakis in this case) – then the stance is wrong, and requires an excuse or a defense, at the very least.

    Of course, that moral claim – don’t harm the innocent – implicates factual ones, as they all do (is this a harm? Is the victim innocent??). But there’s no need to argue those because, so far, nobody has denied that branding, e.g., Dothrakis as “more criminal by nature,” does in fact harm the innocent. And not just by way of insulting them.
    In contrast, the contested empirical question of whether, say, being circumcised or brown-colored makes me likelier to kill my neighbor, is NOT relevant. It would harm the innocent EITHER WAY. So your generalizations about Jews, Blacks, Germans, Whites and the rest are not relevant to my argument, much as you’d like them to be.

    You MAY think they’re relevant to whether there is an excuse for harming the innocent in this case, despite its initial, pro tanto wrongness. If that’s your position, then we have something to debate – and we agree on a lot more than I’d have thought. But as long as you won’t budge, even on harming the innocent in the first place, even in isolation, there’s not much hope of moving on. Your “fun” may have to end. Sorry.

    • So in essence what you are saying is that it is morally wrong to apply inductive reasoning to individuals. Your thinking is exactly why the TSA subjects everyone who uses air travel to invasive, costly, humiliating and time consuming searches rather than target particular individuals who are likely to be involved in terrorism on the basis of their group identity. Rather than harm any particular individual through profiling, we instead opt to respect everyone’s individuality in all of its glorious snowflakeyness and in so doing we exponentially multiply harms and then redistribute them across the entire society in a completely irrational manner.

      It is clear that the issue here isn’t whether the innocent are harmed, because it is not always and everywhere wrong to harm the innocent. You are using the term “harming the innocent” in too broad and indiscriminate a manner to do the moral work you need it to- I can trivially cause harms to the innocent by doing all kinds of perfectly morally licit things. i.e. I’m late for work and I crowd myself into an elevator causing discomfort to those around me. I have harmed the innocent but my reasons are exculpatory. So too with using induction to shield myself against probable harm by making judgments about others on the basis of their general rather than particular characteristics. So the crux of the issue isn’t merely “harms” but whether the harms are justified and therefore not blameworthy.

      Returning to the white minority scenario: If whites enslave brown people every time they attain power in a society, and I run for office as a white person, I have indeed been harmed if people refuse to vote for me solely because I am white. But nobody is morally culpable for harming me in this way because they are taking completely rational and justified measures to prevent likely harm to themselves. The alternative is that they suspend judgment on all white candidates for office, and shoulder the risk of getting themselves enslaved and dominated once again because they refused to consider some entirely relevant general facts about my identity.

      I’m sorry, but your moral scruples seem to demand that we engage in a kind of human dodo bird behavior. And in the actual world, that’s exactly what we find when your scruples are applied- the European nations inviting their own destruction by refusing to use the information available to them about the threats posed by other people groups.

    • SCC,
      What an awesome post. Exactly right. Thank you.

      As a man in a certain age range, I’m treated differently from girls and women, old men and little boys. If the cops are looking for a rapist or a burglar or whatever they’re much more likely to focus on me than a woman my age, for example. More than a few times, especially in my teens, I was pulled over and questioned because they thought I looked like someone they were looking for. Walking home late at night, women are afraid of me and often cross the street (or else I cross to make them feel safer).

      This is sometimes mildly unpleasant for me, and sometimes really not nice at all. Being questioned by a pair of hostile dumb cops is not a nice experience. And since I’m not a criminal, it’s “undeserved”. So what? Still, the fact is that men in my general age group tend to be far more violent and criminal and anti-social than others. Society has a _right_ to protect itself against these very serious harms and risks. In fact I think society has a _duty_ to treat men (of a certain age) very differently from others. But then I can’t have a legitimate “grievance” against others for doing what they (at least) have the right to do. And so it also can’t be _wrong_ for society to act as they are morally entitled to act–can’t be like lying or stealing. Even if such behaviors “harm” generally nice and harmless guys like me in some dubious sense of the term. (Harm to x = anything that x finds to be somehow unpleasant?) In fact a man who wanted to bitch and moan about this would have to be a real idiot, or else an anti-social prick. Now there are limits to this kind of thing, of course. The generally greater male tendency to some bad behavior doesn’t justify the cops in just rounding up all men aged 17-45 and putting them in camps, for example. But no one is suggesting anything of that kind.

      Do you disagree with any of this? If you do you’re truly nuts. I hope you don’t have kids or a wife or elderly parents who depend on you to protect them. And I hope for your sake you don’t often find yourself in situations where you need to think like a normal human adult about dangerous men. If you don’t disagree, fill in the analogy with Jews, blacks and other groups given relevant empirical data about their tendencies.

  24. Jacques,

    I’m trying to fill in the analogy, but exactly how would a good protector of his loved ones act in the face of these dangers you’ve identified? I mean besides whining to guys like me. What do you propose be done about the group tendencies you’ve empirically found, what response constitutes “protection” as any normal adult understands the word? And how does a society protect itself, if you’re right empirically?

  25. Racial profiling and immigration reform to exclude parasitic and otherwise undesirable groups would be a start. Also freedom of association: repeal all anti-discrimination laws regarding private life and property. Oh, and stop all the lying and evasions and euphemism about who commits crime, terrorism, treason. That’d be a good start. You feel me? 🙂

  26. I feel you. So who would you exclude? And if you’re correct, then the biggest problem is those already here. You can’t remove them (I hope), and any “dangerous types” you could ward off simply by free association and truth-talk couldn’t be all that dangerous in the first place, right? Or is there another line of defense? Macho blogging??

  27. Well I could offer more details but, just to clarify, are you conceding that true generalizations and prudential behavior is okay wrt men, and that the analogy with certain racial groups holds? Because in that case you’re giving up your earlier “moral” position altogether. And now you’re just arguing that my position is impractical or something–not that it’s false or morally wrong. Just want to be clear before we move on to your new entirely different (and weaker) objection.

    • I’m just trying to resolve an inconsistency. You say all you want to do is speak frankly about the “dangerous tendencies” of various groups. But if they really are dangerous, warranting protective measures, then surely you’d have to do more than talk, even more than profiling and free associating. But what? Or are they not all that dangerous, after all?

    • Jared,
      That’s not an inconsistency.Get real. You asked what I’d do so I mentioned a few things–said those would be a good _start_. It’s not inconsistent to simply fail to offer a total plan that solves every problem. Even if I had no other ideas it would make no difference wrt consistency. I’ll expand if you like. First please answer my question: are you conceding in the original. debate? Because that seems (more) important here.

  28. Jared, Jacques gives some good examples of reasonable profiling in everyday life. They are ubiquitous and necessary. If you think about it we are constrained and affected and judged all the time as members of groups we belong to, and often suffer as a result. For example, a young 18 year old male could be a very responsible and safe driver, but he has to pay higher insurance rates thanks to all those in his demographic who act irresponsibly. A 65 year old male who might be in super shape and health has to pay higher medical insurance rates because many people in that group let their health go. Are you going to tell insurance companies it is just wrong and immoral to do that?

    And of course, an essential part of advertising and marketing is profiling and targeting individuals demographically.

    Individuals, companies, governments, cops… often do not have the time or resources to make judgments about people based on their individual characteristics and merits; it is not possible, and they should not be expected to.

  29. “are you conceding that true generalizations and prudential behavior is okay wrt men, and that the analogy with certain racial groups holds? ”

    Jacques, if this is what you mean by “conceding in the original debate,” then it sounds okay, taken in itself: “true generalizations” and “prudential behavior” taken alone do not name anything impermissible, as far as I can tell. But like many activities that, in themselves, are morally neutral, these could be problematic if directed towards causing unjustified harm, such as revealing a state secret, or a private secret nobody has right to know, or…it depends on the particular “true generalization” and the case. Prudential behavior, when it includes ducking behind a bystander to avoid — and redirect — police gunfire, is problematic. But unlike lying, stealing or intentionally harming the innocent, “true generalizations” and “prudential behavior” are not on their face impermissible unless there’s an excuse or countervailing justification. Does that concede enough for you??

    By the way, I understand if you’re afraid to specify how you’d protect against the supposedly dangerous tendencies of blacks and Jews you’ve described, even if I don’t see the topical link to my concession here. You don’t want to get publicly branded a bigot or worse; some fears are justified.

  30. Hi Jared,
    It seems we agree on a lot now. You’re not saying that my earlier claims about bad behavior of blacks and Jews (and many other groups too, I should add) are false or immoral, and you’re not denying that it could be morally just fine for society to do _something_ about that kind of bad behavior. You’re not denying that some forms of “discrimination” are acceptable with regard to men as compared with women, or that my analogy holds with regard to various racial and ethnic groups should it turn out that those groups are relevantly similar to men in that range. And you’re not even saying that my position is “inconsistent” anymore. You just think I don’t go far enough, I suppose.

    The question is what I’d propose be done. Well, I suggested concrete measures which I think would help a lot–which is not to say I don’t have anything else in mind, or that I’m “afraid to specify” anything else. (I’m certainly not afraid to be called “a bigot or worse”. If I were afraid of that I’d never have said anything on this topic; after all, it was obvious that people like you would call me all kinds of names, just as you’ve been doing, for reasons that you now seem to be retracting. No doubt you still think I’m a “bigot”, for no reason at all.)

    Consider ending all anti-discrimination laws in the private sphere. This would enable law-abiding people of all races to take common sense precautions against black criminality and violence and general unpleasantness. They’d be free to hire people they take to be reliable and trustworthy and non-threatening. They’d be free to live in largely white communities, and state explicitly that they value the whiteness of their communities. They’d be free to make private contracts with each other, e.g., to sell their homes only to whites, or to sell to blacks only under more stringent conditions than would otherwise apply. You think this kind of thing would make no difference at all in terms of protecting ourselves from the bad behavior of blacks? If so I’m curious to hear why you think that. Seems to me it would make a big difference, and that’s why western governments have been so eager to forbid so-called “discrimination”.

    Other things we could do would include ending forced integration. If your kids aren’t forced to attend schools full of blacks they’re much less likely to be bullied, beaten, molested, robbed, etc. Also they’re going to get a far better education and learn better (white) standards of behavior. No more busing, no more Section 8 housing being forced into the middle of some pleasant civilized white neighborhood, etc. You don’t think that would help, at least, in protecting us?

    Also we could end all the lies and propaganda. Instead of pretending that Trayon Martin or Michael Brown were wholly innocent victims of “racism” we’d just admit that they were dangerous scumbags who only got what they deserved. We’d let it be known that dangerous scumbags (of whatever race) may often get hurt or killed, because of their own shitty behavior. Cops wouldn’t have to fear for their careers and lives when dealing with black criminals. Instead of calling a bunch of thieving murderous savages on a rampage a “protest” we’d call it “savagery” and deploy the full force of the state to crush these things immediately; we’d punish the perpetrators _severely_. A few years in prison, for example, and require them to pay for any damages they caused to other people’s property. We’d punish academics and activists who incite this savagery _severely_. You lose your job, for example, and face criminal charges. Everyone, including whites, would then enjoy a far more peaceful and civilized society. None of this would help?

    Earlier you claimed that the worst problems are due to people already here, and that–surely–we can’t make them leave; so you were suggesting I’m not addressing the worst problems. This is confused in two respects. First, we _can_ make many of them leave. A lot of the very worst scum are illegals. Simply enforcing the law would greatly lower their numbers. And even those that are citizens–Nidal Hassan, for example–could be given strong incentives to go somewhere else. They’d be better off, and so would we. For example, we could pass a constitutional amendment declaring that Islam is not a purely ‘religious’ phenomenon but also a political one, and therefore not protected in the same way that other religions are. We could start shutting any mosque known to be promoting anti-western or anti-Christian views. We could make it clear that Euro Christian values and culture are normative and hegemonic in western countries. Some people in the west would find that threatening or offensive. Some would then go back where they came from, or where their parents came from. But the second confusion is that even if it’s true _now_ that the worst problems are groups already in our nations, those people are only here in the first place because we didn’t do any of the things I’m proposing! We can be sure that in 10 or 20 years all these terrible problems are going to be exponentially worse because–unless our policies change–we’ll have far _more_ incompatible, backwards, hostile, criminally-inclined parasites pretending to be fellow citizens and westerners. And so I’m proposing radical immigration reforms _now_ in order to minimize these foreseeable and far _worse_ problems in the very near future. Duh.

    I think lots of Jews are basically decent reasonable people and would change their behavior, or influence the bad actors in their community to change, once the majority simply asserts itself _as_ the majority. Speaking out frankly about our differences, our conflicts of interests, our right to act like the majority that we are and oppose Jewish subversion and lies and hypocrisy would probably change a lot of minds. Or at least it would _motivate_ better behavior. I think the average Jew on the street, quite understandably, has no idea that the behavior of his group tends to be dishonest, disloyal, harmful and offensive to the majority. And that’s because–ironically–the immense power of Jews and Jewish organizations means that the majority never speak up as such, never _tell_ Jews straight up that they’re pissed off. I think it’s really only a powerful wealthy minority of Jews who are consciously harming the rest of us (including other Jews, in the long run). You don’t think some straight talk, political organizing and activism on the part of the majority would make any difference here?

    There is a hardcore of Jewish activists and intellectuals and policy makers who are conscious enemies of the majority. People like Tim Wise, for example. They should be expelled from normal society. No more jobs at universities or speaking tours or newspaper gigs. No more funding or support of any kind from the state. Their views should be considered evil and hateful and totally indefensible. And that’s what _would_ happen if we stopped all the lies and evasions and propaganda, and let everyone reflect on the relevant facts. Their insane anti-majority arguments and claims would collapse like a house of cards in the face of real intelligent criticism–much as your “moral argument” from earlier has quickly collapsed in the face of a few elementary philosophical principles and well established empirical facts. Let the hardcore occupy the position now held by neo-Nazis. Let them be ostracized from the Jewish mainstream because other Jews don’t want to provoke the majority. (And some of them probably deserve more than that. Criminal charges of some kind, perhaps. They are traitors or, if that’s not quite the right term, they’re agents of a hostile foreign power.) Maybe I’m naive, but I think this would also be very helpful and entirely feasible. You disagree?

    In any case, if you still think what I’m proposing is too mild and ineffective, why don’t you tell me what _you_ think we should do? After all, you seem to be agreeing that my position is reasonable and moral, so you should agree that some kind of prudential policy is justified here. What would it be? (Or is your view that even if I’m right it would be best to let western societies collapse into chaos and tyranny and dysfunction just so that hostile minorities can be comfortable for maybe a few more decades, and regardless of any basic interests of the majority?)

  31. Sorry to be off the grid, the god of conferences beckoned. And thanks, Jacques, for agreeing to let some non-whites stick around under certain conditions.

    But now I have a true generalization of my own, while we’re at it: people who publicly malign ethnic or racial groups tend, over the centuries, to include (among others) dangerous bigots who use this practice to foment and participate in atrocities (Rwanda, Burundi, Armenia, Sebrenica, Germany, etc., just in the past century). Notice I say “include,” not everyone, present company excluded, of course! But it’s a tendency of the group, so says the historical evidence. So, to for protection, perhaps we could round up all those who publicly bash ethnic or racial groups, and shun, isolate, banish and if need be, expel them. At the very least we could publicly brand them as dangerous, and unfit to be trusted as equal members of society.

    Many things, I’m sure, could be said against this proposal. But given what you’ve argued, none are available to you.

  32. People who do that include virtually all humans in all societies ever. Expelling all such people from almost any society would just be to transplant that society (or its intellectual and political elites). But anyway, your argument is faulty in a few respects. First, since such behavior is almost universal, the tendency to foment atrocities is very hard to gauge and compare with the tendency others to do the same stuff–no proper comparison class. Second, if the “maligning” is often true, the “atrocities” may be simply understandable responses to hostility and harm to the maligners.

    More importantly, excluding prospective immigrants is not like expelling people already here. I have no problem with preventing those who _falsely_ malign the majority from immigrating. I can without inconsistency allow that those who have _true_ complaints and negative generalizations about us should not be expelled. You’re inventing this expulsion stuff, attributing it to me, then criticizing your straw man. Your objection was in effect that since I merely propose immigration reform and the like, my proposal won’t work. Now you ignore my rebuttal and claim in effect that something I never proposed is mean and extreme. Talk about inconsistency!

    By the way, since you have no objection to my position, and apparently concede its formal correctness, and you (strangely) take it to imply the permissibility of expelling troublesome groups, how would _you_ object to your silly new. expulsion argument? Many things could be said against it but none are available to you.

  33. PS the best way to deal with risk of such atrocities is not to force incompatible groups to share a society in the first place. Then there’d be less maligning and hostility all around. Let humans be humans and live as everyone naturally prefers.

  34. PPS — In the very small sample of societies where we find people saying it’s wrong to “malign” ethnic groups, we also find a very high rate of atrocity. Think of the USSR atrocities and US atrocities against Dresden and Hiroshima. Also it seems that such people present a most serious threat to their fellow citizens, as they atrociously invite hostile aliens and facilitate their aggressions. More generally, we can note that vastly more innocents have been murdered and oppressed by so-called “egalitarians” than by people like me. So if I had implied mass expulsion, as Jared strangely thinks, the best candidates by his own standard of atrocity-proneness would be people like Jared. Kick them all out so normal “racist” people like me–the majority in almost all societies–can be safer.

  35. But none of this matters. Notice what’s happening. Jared began by charging that other people were doing wrong by merely allowing my “bigotry” on their site, or something like that. He has not defended that charge successfully nor has he even supported the silly claim that I’m a bigot. Then he said it didn’t matter whether I was right, that facts are “irrelevant”, but later he appeared to abandon that claim too. Then he said that my position is impractical or not extreme enough to be effective, but then he seemed to abandon even _that_ in favor of the charge that it has overly _extreme_ implications.

    At no point has he admittted that my side has a rational moral position, or that any of his earlier charges were false (or at least inadequately supported). He just keeps going though!

    What we observe is that none of these predictable leftist complaints and slurs can be rationally defended. So he has to keep moving his goalposts. But I think there’s nowhere left to put them.

Leave a Reply (Be sure to read our comment disclaimer)