Pharyngula

Posted by: InfuriatedSciTeacher | September 22, 2009 10:20 PM

Trying to picture PZ jamming to Busta Rhymes... and laughing. I dislike most of the genre, but love some Beastie Boys and the Roots... and this might be an interesting way to reinforce genetics lessons for HS students, if they can be convinced it isn't lame.

Posted by: InfuriatedSciTeacher | September 22, 2009 10:23 PM

That's actually not bad... decent track underneath too.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | September 22, 2009 10:28 PM

Trying to picture PZ jamming to Busta Rhymes... and laughing. I dislike most of the genre, but love some Beastie Boys and the Roots.

I've got some of my own favorites, but as someone who teaches in areas of race and of popular culture, it's kind of incumbent on me to at least have a passing knowledge. It was a real smack in the face yesterday to realize that much of N.W.A. and Public Enemy's work was produced before my students were born.

Posted by: R. Schauer | September 22, 2009 10:46 PM

PZ

Busta is da' man!

Extinction Level Event:

Uugh, yeah yeah here we go y'all
Here we here we here we go y'all
Busta Rhymes Flipmode y'all
Yeah yeah y'all extinction level event shit
Bomb threat to the whole world
What what what is going on
What the fuck going on here
Check it out yo
Holy amazing grace about face
Total erase you niggaz off the face of the place
Such a shame I had to go grab the calico
Pass the dough before you find out what I had to blast you for
Extreme laws for ones who did try to go against this
Wet your shit up like a sloppy tongue kiss
But don't know what you talking about
Without a doubt where my live niggaz give me a shout
On the strength shit niggaz check for
Connect the four shots and guess who blew it from next door
Time after time we gonna shine again
Feel it like a broad getting fucked from behind again
Ay yo, I be the closest thing to the next
Like the pain and suffering of about a million deaths
I'm only here to present
And bring the impact of the extinction level event
Sing the song of salvation

La la la la laaaa la la
(What y'all gonna do where the fuck you gonna go)
La la la la laaaa la la
(Where the fuck y'all niggaz gonna run
Where y'all niggaz think y'all running to son)
La la la la laaaa la la
(Bomb threat to the world
What the fuck going on with y'all niggaz out here)
La la la la laaaa la la
(We are now a soldier at dawn
Of glory emergency motherfuckas)

Yo, disregard your whole assignment
Crooked ass nigga need some realignment
Now all refinement
Crazy shit that do make me wanna know where my mind went
Blacking out building hostillity getting violent
Straight giving niggaz an ass whipping on consignment
Then I bust your shit 'til the day of my whole retirement
Shaking and rattle like we ready to battle
Fight seeing at every angle like a motherfucking satellite
Quickly bust up your crotches and fuck up your process
Bouncing in like even saying adios or even buenos notches
Have y'all niggaz wildin having a fit
Flame throwing lyrics like a bunch of blowtorch in this shit
Grand spectacular, chainsaw massacre
Thug fanatics street shit that be on the creep coming after you
Then we hit you with the most significant time bomb
Ready to designate at the slightest wave of a white arm
Best form of advice I could give is remain calm
The repercussion is something you could never imagine would be going on
Never believe in your eyes
When my squad some through at an astronomically large size
Moving the mountains
Keeping all of my niggaz bouncing
Big up my bitches in the place who be screaming and shouting
I'm only here to present
And bring the impact of the extinction level event
Sing the song of salvation

...classic Busta!

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | September 22, 2009 10:50 PM

Really? Are people still bitching about rap? Do they know it's 2009 and the genre is over three decades old and not just something those darn kids listen to?

It will never die. In a choir I sang in a long, long time ago we were performing Poulenc's Stabat Mater. One guy complained at every rehearsal because "there was quite simply no good music written after Bach's death."

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | September 22, 2009 11:01 PM

So I had this argument with my ex-wife (#2, truth be told) tonight. She feels that anyone's taste in music is their own...no judgments; no criteria other than "I like it." I insist that musical taste can also be influenced by knowledge; that some opinions are better educated, and therefore more sophisticated, than others.

Naturally, I refer to my own tastes.

Posted by: mister-fire | September 22, 2009 11:03 PM

It is a little cheesy - but nowhere near the teeth-grinding awfulness of hearing Young Conservatives bustin' lyrics.

Posted by: Benjamin Geiger | September 22, 2009 11:15 PM

What the dilly yo?

Posted by: Kel, OM | September 22, 2009 11:20 PM

Do they know it's 2009 and the genre is over three decades old and not just something those darn kids listen to?

Posted by: Gecko | September 23, 2009 12:01 AM

I showed this to my biology class and it was hit XD Teacher and kids, some even asked me if I could find more like this because it helped this understand it more.

One thing that rap and hip-hop are really great for is leveraging the mnemonic power of poetry. I think it's a great musical genre for talking singing about topics like science.

True word, Brian, true word.

Posted by: skeptical scientist | September 23, 2009 12:11 AM

#2, my guess is Oort Kuiper is an invented name, taken from Oort cloud and Kuiper belt.

Posted by: Benjamin Geiger | September 23, 2009 12:32 AM

Cod blammit. I forgot that I didn't need explicit <br /> tags...

Posted by: Phro | September 23, 2009 2:41 AM

I am thoroughly convinced that anyone who hates any and all rap is somehow racist.

It's an absurd stance to take about an entire genre with more songs that often have incredible complexity. People are simply not trained to identify that complexity, nor are they interested in learning. Because it's not based on a conventional European theory of music.

Same reason that most people, when reading classic literature, don't bother with Asian literature. It requires a new way to understand it.

So, hyperbolically speaking, if you reject rap, you are racist.

(This is only partially tongue in cheek.)

Posted by: Treppenwitz | September 23, 2009 3:15 AM

I'm pretty surprised that that didn't suck—not because it's rap, but because it's gimmicky rap, which tends to sound just awful.

Tangentially related: Blackalicious feat. Cut Chemist - Chemical Calisthenics. Not particularly informative, but entertaining.

So, hyperbolically speaking, if you reject rap, you are racist.

Posted by: Kel | September 23, 2009 4:42 AM

Yes, yes, but I'm still waiting for my partial differential equations heavy metal.

"In the darkness of the night, the gradients doth rise, rah rah grawh!"

*puts on Meshuggah*

Posted by: Hyperon | September 23, 2009 5:19 AM

I think the problem many of us have with rap is the disturbing violence which generally seems present in the art. I have no problem with violence in entertainment (in fact, I even like it), but what's so sinister about rap is that they are apparently actually serious in promoting violence. They seriously believe their barbaric, "gangsta" ways are something to publicly boast about. I don't think this boasting, this reveling in barbarism, is something to be encouraged. Rap is almost certainly, in my opinion, an overall force for evil in the world.

Posted by: shaunotd | September 23, 2009 5:42 AM

Since we've gotten around to metal, this community always brings to mind a Mike Muir rant (abridged) from "You can't bring me down", by Suicidal Tendencies:

Just 'cos you don't understand what's goin' on doesn't mean it don't make no sense,
And just 'cos you don't like it don't mean it ain't no good...
...And if I offended you, aw I'm sorry, but maybe you needed to be offended,
So here's my apology, and one more thing:
FUCK YOU!

Posted by: Fred The Hun | September 23, 2009 6:17 AM

That was great! I'm forwarding it to my son's high school biology teacher who I happened to meet at the PTA meeting last night.

At least I can spread da meme.

Posted by: Hyperon | September 23, 2009 6:33 AM

Hyperon- seriously, watch the video I linked to. The violence/misogyny is what a lot younger white suburban consumers responded the most to, so the mainstream of rap became that in order to be profitable.

Posted by: John Morales | September 23, 2009 6:37 AM

Treppenwitz,

Do yourself a favor and listen to some hip-hop beyond the shit on the top 40.

I'd have to be paid, and paid well, to have to endure that.

I find the genre most irritating.

(No, I haven't even tried to see the video in the post. I thank PZ for the warning.)

Posted by: Ray Moscow | September 23, 2009 6:55 AM

Still, it is great to see science being celebrated in popular arts. Obviously some people like rap a lot, or they wouldn't be buying it.

I prefer "classic rock" myself.

Posted by: Porco Dio | September 23, 2009 7:08 AM

i'm no fan of rap, but i am a fan of people expressing themselves...

so this is easy to like...

Posted by: Carlie | September 23, 2009 7:28 AM

God, Hyperon, learn to use language properly. Or argue with actual information. Or something.

I claimed that rap is "generally" violent. I didn't say "some of it is violent, therefore it's all bad", because I am not an idiot.

Then you are still wrong. It is not "generally" violent, it is a particular genre of rap that is violent. Now, that is the one that gets the most top-40 play, so you could argue that it has parallels to fundamentalist Christianity; it in no way represents the entire group, but unfortunately is the the loudest and the one most people pay attention to. However, that is still different than saying it is "generally" violent.

Are people really trying to argue that a person who has never heard music before, tone deaf and arhythmic has exactly the same quality of judgement as one who has studied music for decades?

It depends on what kind of judgment you're after. If it's complexity of style, amount of drawing off of previous methods and examples, etc., then of course you need a trained person. But if the judgment is "it makes me happy" or "it speaks to me" or "I have fun singing along with it", then of course each person's opinion is her or his own.

Posted by: Hyperon | September 23, 2009 7:31 AM

God, Hyperon, learn to use language properly. Or argue with actual information. Or something.

Posted by: Hyperon | September 23, 2009 7:46 AM

Here is a list of 220 rap songs that are nonviolent and generally female-positive. I found it in 5 seconds of Google. Looking through it, it's not like they're all rah-rah-people songs, but they're nonviolent and not overly misogynistic.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | September 23, 2009 8:02 AM

Hyperon- seriously, watch the video I linked to. The violence/misogyny is what a lot younger white suburban consumers responded the most to, so the mainstream of rap became that in order to be profitable.

Exactly. The moment was the early 1990s. The artists, N.W.A. and Public Enemy, among others. Major corporations finally began taking notice of this art form and selling it to white kids, who are how it's primary consumers. Watch, HIP-HOP, Beyond Beats and Rhymes and you'll hear folks trying to get record contracts talking about trying to do positive hip hop: they can't get contracts. The companies are looking to sell images of misogyny and violence, and the suburban kids are buying it.

That's just a lame excuse to pin on "the white man" the blame for the misogynistic, savage hip hop culture that was born in African-American ghettos.

and

Yeah, sure: ghetto kids behaving violently bears little to no resemblance to reality

Spend a lot of time in the inner city working with black kids, cracker? Sure seem to be an expert.

Posted by: Hyperon | September 23, 2009 8:07 AM

Spend a lot of time in the inner city working with black kids, cracker? Sure seem to be an expert.

Posted by: Hyperon | September 23, 2009 8:14 AM

I see "cracker" was appropriate.

Posted by: charley | September 23, 2009 8:17 AM

I think music written in 6/8 time has generally been a negative moral force, especially the key of E minor. The Nazis used it a lot.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | September 23, 2009 8:23 AM

Hyperon, who would PZ banned? Your insipid lying self, or a long term respected regular with an OM who nailed you? You should rethink your activities here.

Posted by: Hyperon | September 23, 2009 8:28 AM

Hyperon, who would PZ banned? Your insipid lying self, or a long term respected regular with an OM who nailed you? You should rethink your activities here.

As you're always reminding us, assertions should not be made without substantiating evidence. How do you back up your serious allegation that I'm a liar?

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | September 23, 2009 8:28 AM

I don't have to be an "expert" to know that the culture in African-American ghettos is singularly primitive and violent.

No but you have to have a special kind of idiocy and prejudice to be as myopic as you are about it.

dumb ass

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | September 23, 2009 8:32 AM

I'll take care of that. I'll actually be seeing MAJeff either tonight or tomorrow. I'll give him a hug just for you

First beer Thursday's on me PZ.

Posted by: strange gods before me | September 23, 2009 8:33 AM

Hyperon, I don't understand. Why are you so afraid of black people?

Posted by: chebghobbi | September 23, 2009 8:36 AM

I challenge anyone to listen to 'You Never Know' by Immortal Technique and not be moved.

Posted by: Bobber | September 23, 2009 8:40 AM

I don't have to be an "expert" to know that the culture in African-American ghettos is singularly primitive and violent.

Holy shit.

Have you even spoken with any black people in a "ghetto", or worked with gang members, as I have? You do know that they are people, with present needs and hopes for the future not all that different from your own?

Do you realize that you are overgeneralizing and blaming the victims?

Do you not understand that the violent, misogynistic rap that is mass-marketed is more indicative of the culture of greed in our establishmet media rather than what is the reality for most African-Americans?

You've got to expand your horizons just a little bit. There is far more to hip-hop than "gangsta rap", nor does rap in and of itself define African-American culture.

(For the record, though, neither rap nor southern-style rock/country ever make it to my ears if I can help it. Heavy beats set me on edge, and "twangy" guitars make me nauseous.)

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | September 23, 2009 8:44 AM

Then you are still wrong. It is not "generally" violent, it is a particular genre of rap that is violent. Now, that is the one that gets the most top-40 play, so you could argue that it has parallels to fundamentalist Christianity; it in no way represents the entire group, but unfortunately is the the loudest and the one most people pay attention to. However, that is still different than saying it is "generally" violent.

Unfortunately, most fuddy-duddies like me are only exposed to Top 40s rap. So if our general impression of a rap lyric is "I'll rape you up the ass and kill you, mothafuckin' bitch" then we might fail to recognize the beauty expressed in the rap ambiance.

Actually my main problem with rap is that I'm somewhat deaf and I can't hear what's being said in most of the songs. Please don't hate me for my deafness.

Posted by: strange gods before me | September 23, 2009 8:46 AM

Jeez, way to overreact to a simple question.

Posted by: Carlie | September 23, 2009 8:51 AM

In other words, you can't say what's wrong with my posts, yet you're aware that it's fashionable to pile on Hyperon.

I see you have completely disregarded the fact that immediately after the sentence you quoted, I then said exactly what was wrong with your post. Although, you did quote the next sentence later, with a pretty stupid retort, indicating that you did indeed notice that I said what was wrong with your post, but somehow thought it was irrelevant to your point that I "can't say what's wrong with [my] posts". Reading comprehension ftw.

Holy fucking shit. Didn't take much scratching to get to that bigotry, did it? Amazing how some people have such a thin veneer of civility over all that seething hatred.

Posted by: Carlie | September 23, 2009 8:57 AM

Argh, lost my blockquote. That last paragraph of mine in #79 was in response to Hyperon's white man's manifesto in #66.

So if our general impression of a rap lyric is "I'll rape you up the ass and kill you, mothafuckin' bitch" then we might fail to recognize the beauty expressed in the rap ambiance

True, but I would also assume that everyone ought to be as self-aware as you just were, 'Tis, in acknowledging that you are only exposed to a tiny fraction of it. So the appropriate response would be "I can't stand the most popular stuff that filters down to my recognition, but I really can't say much about the entire style of music because I don't know much about it."

Posted by: Bobber | September 23, 2009 8:58 AM

Oh my gods! Hyperon is Ed Begley from "12 Angry Men"!

Posted by: Hyperon | September 23, 2009 9:04 AM

If MAJeff is white, I will let him off with the "cracker", since it would be self-effacing for him. If he's not, he is a racist, plain and simple, and he has no more of a right to call someone a cracker than I have to call someone a nigger.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | September 23, 2009 9:07 AM

I will let him off

bwahahahahahaha. What an arrogant little racist.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | September 23, 2009 9:10 AM

That's got to be a load off of your mind. :D

And a load we'll leave on his.

Posted by: Treppenwitz | September 23, 2009 9:11 AM

Is anyone actually offended by cracker? To me, it never seemed to have any bite.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | September 23, 2009 9:12 AM

Is anyone actually offended by cracker? To me, it never seemed to have any bite.

Crackers?

Or, to paraphrase the Lauren Hill line from The Score, "I add a 'fucking cracker' so you ignant racists hear me."

Posted by: Trug | September 23, 2009 9:14 AM

I had been hoping I would be able to get this in before the thread was hijacked by racism, but oh well...

PZ, you don't have to answer to anyone about Busta. Ever since he appeared on Space Ghost a while back he's been on my playlist too. He's got style! And wooden eels.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | September 23, 2009 9:18 AM

So the appropriate response would be "I can't stand the most popular stuff that filters down to my recognition, but I really can't say much about the entire style of music because I don't know much about it."

The problem is that if one's first (and often second and third) impressions of some art form are negative, then one is unlikely to seek out more pleasant exemplars. I know there are non-misogynist, non-violent forms of rap. PZ gives an example in his post. I even enjoyed that rap.

If someone recommends a rap song, I'll listen to it. But I'm not going to spend hours digging through YouTube videos trying to find other rap songs I'd like. I've got Joe Abercrombie's latest novel, Best Served Cold, waiting to be read. I strongly believe I'll enjoy that book, but I don't believe I'll enjoy listening to random rap as much.

Posted by: James Sweet | September 23, 2009 9:22 AM

Is anyone actually offended by cracker? To me, it never seemed to have any bite.

I generally don't think so, though I could imagine a context where the obvious intention behind the usage of the word would piss me off. It's never happened to me that I can recall... but I imagine if I were in a situation where I felt that someone was treating me inappropriately solely because I was white, and then they called me a cracker, I would be even more pissed off than if they had just treated me inappropriately. Like I say, though, nothing like that has ever happened to me, and I imagine it's not a particularly common occurrence...

I knew a guy who came from Okeechobee, FL, and he claimed that they have an annual "Cracker Fest", and yes they mean it that way... could just be an urban legend though. ;)

Posted by: Hyperon | September 23, 2009 9:24 AM

I recall you recently asserted your right to call women bitches. Are you a woman?

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | September 23, 2009 9:26 AM

It's universally known that for the United States these are singularly violent places with singularly bad economic conditions.

A lazy racist.

Posted by: Hyperon | September 23, 2009 9:29 AM

A lazy racist.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | September 23, 2009 9:33 AM

Hey, it's a Louis CK se[g]ue. :)

"What can you reall call a white man that really digs in? 'Hey cracker.' Um, ruined my day."

Posted by: Matt Penfold | September 23, 2009 9:35 AM

Women call men bastards, as I observed at the time. I think "bastard" is exactly antipodal to "bitch". If I didn't think that, I might agree with you that bitch is a misogynistic word.

Bastard is in why equivalent to bitch.

Bitch is a gender specific term, bastard is not.

Posted by: Stephen Wells | September 23, 2009 9:35 AM

Hey, I'm one-sixteenth Snot Elemental, Hyperon; your disgusting racism against my sinus-resident ancestors is cause for _immediate_ banishment.

Posted by: Hyperon | September 23, 2009 9:39 AM

And white people call black people niggers. So by your logic, you there's nothing wrong with black people calling white people crackers.

Start with something more basic, like De Morgan's laws (or maybe the law of identity is better suited for your level), before stepping in the ring with Hyperon.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | September 23, 2009 9:42 AM

Bastard is in why equivalent to bitch.

Bitch is a gender specific term, bastard is not.

That should "...is in no way..."

I would also add that I am not aware of any context in which bitch can be used in friendly manner. Bastard can be.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | September 23, 2009 9:45 AM

Conversely, "bastard" IS accepted, and I'm going to conclude that so is its inverse, viz. "bitch".

First Bastard is not an equivalent of bitch.

Secondly you have already been told bitch is not an acceptable term around here.

Clearly you are having trouble comprehending English.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | September 23, 2009 9:50 AM

It's clear to me now that Pharyngula hasn't attained sufficient enlightenment to soberly discuss the singular characteristics (and statistics) of ghetto culture.

What an arrogant prick you are...

While you, however, are clearly more enlightened than everyone else... enough so that you can make myopic, ignorant blanket statements about not only ghetto culture, but black ghetto culture specifically... what is your specific training in this background, exactly? Or are you simply relying on your "enlightenment" for elucidation?

You still haven't answered my question... would you make the same characterization of predominantly white projects / ghettos?

Posted by: strange gods before me | September 23, 2009 9:51 AM

Logic clearly isn't your forte. "Nigger" isn't accepted, so there's no reason why "cracker" should be accepted either.

This only holds if the black people and white people are equally oppressed by racism. As I've said before, you are literal-minded to a fault. That's the only way you could believe there's no difference between calling a black person a nigger and calling a white person a cracker.

Conversely, "bastard" IS accepted, and I'm going to conclude that so is its inverse, viz. "bitch".

It does not follow that because a word is "accepted" that it is not also misogynist. If oppression of women is prevalent, then we should expect misogyny to be widely accepted.

Posted by: aiabx | September 23, 2009 9:53 AM

I never really got into hip-hop until I was told to listen to Black Star, and pay attention to the rhythms. It was an epiphany. Turns out rap is a genuinely fascinating musical form. And you can dance to it!

(And your younger coworkers might think you're a bit cooler than you really are.)

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | September 23, 2009 9:57 AM

From the start I restricted myself to African-American ghetto culture. Obviously there are many African-Americans who disapprove of the "gangsta" lifestyle. It goes without saying.

Wait... so "African-American ghetto culture" = "gangsta"? Hmmm...

OK... so please explain for us, in detail, the specific cultural and socio-economic differences between African-American ghetto's and white, asian, hispanic, etc. ghettos... I'd be quite interested in having you "enlighten me" on this topic...

Posted by: Bobber | September 23, 2009 10:01 AM

Take culture out of the equation and genetics are the only explanation for the higher crime rates of African-Americans in ghettos.

Whereas poverty, institutionalized racism, and government neglect have nothing to do with it.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | September 23, 2009 10:02 AM

Oh, here's a little of The Coup

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQthFDpYCys

gotta go to work.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | September 23, 2009 10:03 AM

Take culture out of the equation and genetics are the only explanation for the higher crime rates of African-Americans in ghettos.

Wow... you are just a treasure trove of self-congratulatory stupid.

Can you say "false dichotomy"?

Of course this doesn't matter, because we all know I'm right.

Do you have a mouse in your pocket?

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | September 23, 2009 10:09 AM

I apologize if I gave that impression, but if you read my posts closely you'll see that I indicated above that gangsta culture is spreading to many diverse groups (generally ethnic minorities), such as working class Indians in the UK.

Well, that hardly addresses the request I made in my comment... and as I already stated, I would be interested to know if you would categorize NON-ethnic minority ghettos the same way... and why or why not...

Posted by: strange gods before me | September 23, 2009 10:10 AM

I apologize if I gave that impression, but if you read my posts closely you'll see that I indicated above that gangsta culture is spreading to many diverse groups (generally ethnic minorities), such as working class Indians in the UK.

"Your black people are corrupting our brown people!"

Posted by: octopod | September 23, 2009 10:14 AM

Hyperon, I did recognise that quotation, but what on earth does it have to do with this discussion? We are discussing neither the theory of subjectivity nor the validity of postmodern analysis. I have to assume you put it in there as a longwinded way of saying, to MAJeff, "TL:DR". And that's just stupid.

(For anyone who wants to know, it's a passage of particularly confusing psychoanalytic/philosophical jargon from a paper by Felix Guattari, quoted famously in Sokal's "Fashionable Nonsense", that favourite book of willfully-ignorant pseudoscientific knobjectivists everywhere.)

Posted by: Hyperon | September 23, 2009 10:17 AM

Whereas poverty, institutionalized racism, and government neglect have nothing to do with it.

It doesn't seem unreasonable to me to suppose that gangsta ghetto culture is an important factor causing and perpetuating the violent climate of ghettos. Put me in the dungeon for saying this if you wish, but it will only stand as testament to the intellectual limitations of this community, and won't have anything to do with me (short of my insistence on calling a spade a spade).

Man, he's really trying hard to dig his way into the dungeon, isn't he?

Posted by: toth | September 23, 2009 10:20 AM

Somewhat OT: If anyone is looking for some interesting rap, check out MC Paul Barman. He may not have the best "flow" of them all, but his lyrics are incredibly clever and catchy.

Posted by: Carlie | September 23, 2009 10:23 AM

From the start I restricted myself to African-American ghetto culture. Obviously there are many African-Americans who disapprove of the "gangsta" lifestyle. It goes without saying.

But you quickly removed that specification in #66:"African-American culture IS singularly primitive and violent." Don't blame me for taking you at your word. Something doesn't "go without saying" when that something is directly antithetical to what you are actually saying. And how generous of you to admit that there are "many" African-Americans who disapprove of the gangsta lifestyle. I'm sure all, however many of them you think there are, 15 or so of them will be mighty happy to hear that.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | September 23, 2009 10:27 AM

Awww PZ, Seems like Hyperon does not want to be your friend anymore.

Watch out he does not go demanding a camera from you!

Posted by: Bobber | September 23, 2009 10:29 AM

I take this as patronizing, pompous, obscurantist, trendy nonsense, and I responded to it in kind.

Yeah, that social justice thing - so "trendy".

Posted by: Carlie | September 23, 2009 10:31 AM

I don't think "institutionalized racism" counts for much at all in this culture of affirmative action.

Idiot.

Big idiot.

Posted by: strange gods before me | September 23, 2009 10:38 AM

I don't think "institutionalized racism" counts for much at all in this culture of affirmative action.

Because you're ignorant, Hyperon, and you study nothing, relying only on your prejudices of "common sense."

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/05/04/us-drug-war-unjust-african-americans-0

Posted by: strange gods before me | September 23, 2009 10:45 AM

Carlie, re the resume callback study, there's more alarming detail at the university's website:

The average resume lists eight years of experience. The addition of e-mail addresses, honors, and special skills had a significant effect on the likelihood of white applicants being called, but a statistically insignificant effect for African-American applicants. Employers simply seem to pay less attention or discount the additional characteristics listed on the resumes with African-American sounding names.

"The question may become, 'Do I really want to invest the time to take an evening class to build my resume?'" notes Bertrand. "The payback that an African-American applicant gets from building these skills is much lower than the payback a white applicant would get."

Posted by: Hyperon | September 23, 2009 10:51 AM

Because you're ignorant, Hyperon, and you study nothing, relying only on your prejudices of "common sense."

Nevertheless it seems clear to me that affirmative action outweigh racism, at least in mosts parts America and Europe. I struggle to remember meeting anyone, anywhere, who has come across as a genuine racist. (Of course we hear about them, but meeting them is another thing.) Universally, racism is public taboo. On the other hand I encounter affirmative action on a daily basis. The hysterics in this thread is a good example.

I'm not sure what's caused these hateful outpourings against me. Does anyone doubt my claim that ghetto culture is "singularly violent"? No? Then what's the problem?

Posted by: Carlie | September 23, 2009 10:56 AM

I struggle to remember meeting anyone, anywhere, who has come across as a genuine racist.

Well, if you don't think you're one, then your inability to notice when people you meet are is pretty self-explanatory.

Posted by: Brownian, OM | September 23, 2009 11:06 AM

Wow. I so called it.

"Anyway, I'm tired of these shenanigans. To put it bluntly, this community is just too heavily intellectually dishonest for us to have any serious discussion about any remotely "edgy" issue. Hopefully my posts might act as a sort of virus in hive mind, but after the Collective becomes dissociated you will each of you have to learn to cope as individuals. Maybe one day, many years from now, some of you might possibly be able to think somewhat -- gasp! -- for yourselves."

"I actually think it's racist to stupidly pretend that ghetto culture is NOT violent. Take culture out of the equation and genetics are the only explanation for the higher crime rates of African-Americans in ghettos. Of course this doesn't matter, because we all know I'm right."

"Go fuck yourself, PZ. I used to like you, but in this thread all dregs of respect I had for you have rapidly evaporated. You're a herd-minded tosser. Your "freethinking" only goes as far as it's personally convenient. That makes you a hypocrite and a coward."

Call us when you get your Nobel for being such an enlightened freethinker, you fucking dumb spittle-flecked cracker.

Next time you wanna blow minds, try presenting actual arguments and evidence, rather than bald assertions coupled with a stifling of criticism à la "we all know I'm right." Yeah, that's the sign of a real intellectually honest freethinker all right.

It's like you don't even know what words mean.

Dumb fucking ofay, honky, gweilo, gringo, cracker. Sorry, did those words painfully remind you of the pain of historical slavery and continued institutionalized oppression? No? I wonder why.

Posted by: Carlie | September 23, 2009 11:07 AM

Fuck, I ought to be working, but I will give you a real response, Hyperon.

I struggle to remember meeting anyone, anywhere, who has come across as a genuine racist.

The point of institutionalized racism is that people don't have to self-identify as racist to act that way, and for society to feel the effects of so many people acting that way. There are, of course, blatant racists; they have been crawling out of the woodwork ever since a slim majority of the country had the audacity to vote a black man in for president, even politicians.

But let's leave that aside. Institutional, internalized racism is exactly what's behind the study I linked to in 149 and strange gods updated in 153, if you would read it. It means that a person can believe with all their heart that they are not racist, and maybe even have some black friends, but when confronted with identical resumes from Kwanisha and Kate, will pick Kate to hire every time and not notice they're doing it, and if pressed would not even be able to explain why they prefer Kate. Racism is when you get more nervous seeing five black teenagers walking towards you than when you see five white teenagers walking towards you. Racism is when you think a person who wears their hair in an Afro to work doesn't look "professional" enough.
It's what's behind the Harvard Implicit Associations Test. Racism isn't all about saying "Black people are inferior". It's much more insidious than that.

Posted by: Hyperon | September 23, 2009 11:09 AM

Well, if you don't think you're one, then your inability to notice when people you meet are is pretty self-explanatory.

Here's a question. A decade or two into my incarceration, advancing technology will result in the Language Police being upgraded to the Thought Police. While I'm inside, will they prosecute me with thought crimes, or will I be allowed to wait until I get out before I can stand trial?

Posted by: Carlie | September 23, 2009 11:11 AM

Clarification: I meant give him a real response in contrast to the general fuck off I had just written in 157, not compared to anything else on the thread.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | September 23, 2009 11:13 AM

Here's a question. A decade or two into my incarceration, advancing technology will result in the Language Police being upgraded to the Thought Police. While I'm inside, will they prosecute me with thought crimes, or will I be allowed to wait until I get out before I can stand trial?

blah blah blah blah blah

Posted by: Treppenwitz | September 23, 2009 11:18 AM

hey guys i just read this book called the bell curve and

Posted by: Carlie | September 23, 2009 11:19 AM

Continued institutionalized oppression -- which is overwhelmingly outweighed, to the point that it's really quite laughable, by reverse discrimination and affirmative action.

Posted by: Brownian, OM | September 23, 2009 11:22 AM

which is overwhelmingly outweighed, to the point that it's really quite laughable, by reverse discrimination and affirmative action.

Did you actually use the term 'reverse discrimination'? Wow. Afraid of the "Yellow Peril" too?

For a real example of reverse discrimination, please read this email a member of the Edmonton Police Service has been sending around as a 'joke' since 2002, long before any of us were born, of course.

A little context: in Canada, Aboriginals (herein referred to as 'Indians') are the dominant, oppressive culture (as born out by their socio-economic status). The text is thus a little of that Whites-strikin'-back-against-the-man you're talking about.

Laughable indeed.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | September 23, 2009 11:24 AM

I'm not a social scientist, so I don't know the literature like the back of my hand and can't shit references as I type. I've done some related reading, though, and I'm confident I can support most or all of my assertions.

OK... but you've been arguing with at least ONE well-informed social scientist and many others who are clearly more versed on this than you... who have already provided for you studies and links that directly refute the claims that you have made.

"Some related reading" simply puts you in the "just enough to be ignorant" category. I'll tell you what... respond to and refute what's already been presented to you and then you can scurry off to try and find your "supporting data"... I'm thinking your going to find yourself way in over your head here... because you're clearly not versed enough on the subject matter to understand the data you are looking at... and you are continuing to argue with those who make there living studying and teaching on these issues. Seems foolish to me...

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | September 23, 2009 11:25 AM

I'm not sure what's caused these hateful outpourings against me. Does anyone doubt my claim that ghetto culture is "singularly violent"? No? Then what's the problem?

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | September 23, 2009 11:26 AM

The legacy of slavery endured a long time and endures still. I still remember signs of "whites only" in various public places growing up in the 1960's (100 years after slavery "ended") in the US south and the forced integration of very unequal school systems by the federal government.

The first Africans were brought to this continent as slaves in 1619. We developed and institutionalized a brutal system of race-based slavery that lasted for the next 240 years, and of legal white supremacy, including tolerance for and support of extra-legal white supremacist violence, for the next 100 years. For forty years we've sort of been trying to undo that, but even the Supreme Court started to retreat from school desegregation in the early 1970s. Brown v. Board may live on rhetorically, but it's fairly dead when it comes to school segregation. The realignment of the political parties of the last forty years is attributable to racial politics, as is the retreat from the social welfare state of the past forty years.

Hyperon don't know shit.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | September 23, 2009 11:28 AM

shit... your = you're... dammit...

Posted by: mister-fire | September 23, 2009 11:30 AM

Oh, Jesus.

I left off reading this thread last night, thinking it was going be an awkward but tame inter-generational debate.

That's just a lame excuse to pin on "the white man" the blame for the misogynistic, savage hip hop culture that was born in African-American ghettos.

Hip-Hop has disputed origins, but it most certainly was not born as a misogynistic, savage culture. It was the total opposite. It began (and still persists in sizeable pockets) as social commentary, with artists combining influences from DJing to The Dozens to describe and voice their frustrations at being poor, oppressed, and trapped in the inner-city. The hip-hop practice of battling came about as an attempt to reduce gang violence.

While ribaldry and self-promotion have been dominant features since the beginning, Gangsta Rap and the glorification of violence did not come about until at least a decade after the emergence of hip-hop. As others have noted, this was encouraged chiefly by the music industry, and has now become something of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Hyperon, you had a chance to but you decided to double down on the nastiness, and have since proven yourself to be an ignorant, inconsistent, self-important, misanthropic sack of shit.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | September 23, 2009 11:31 AM

How more fucking ignorant and racist can this arsehole get ?

Something tells me we'll be finding out.

Posted by: Carlie | September 23, 2009 11:36 AM

Last I looked, being able to speak English well in an English-speaking country was quite important.

I...don't even know enough swear words to adequately voice my response to that one.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | September 23, 2009 11:37 AM

in fact I'm smarter than everyone or mostly everyone here,

*hopes we get to see his MENSA card please please please

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | September 23, 2009 11:38 AM

(2) in fact I'm smarter than everyone or mostly everyone here, and...

tee-hee... wow... that's cute... an actual living, breathing personification of the Dunning-Kruger effect. How marvelous...

Ok... I really think we've seen enough... clearly anyone who would make that staement in earnest is beyond being worth our time to argue with. time to move along now... PZ, I think we're done toying with this egomaniacal, racist, misanthropic shit-stain.

Posted by: Carlie | September 23, 2009 11:43 AM

cracker-ass cracker?

MAJeff, do you have any idea how much I adore you? It's a lot.

(1) I have a college degree myself, (2) in fact I'm smarter than everyone or mostly everyone here, and (3) I don't think highly of the social sciences

Can't...stop...laughing...

Posted by: strange gods before me | September 23, 2009 11:48 AM

A racist crank says "la la la la la I can't heeeeear you."

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | September 23, 2009 11:51 AM

Creationist-level dishonest here. Naturally I said anything like "If'n you cain't speak the language... git the fuck out'n my country". My argument only entails that on average, white people in Britain will speak English better than Pakistanis and Bangladeshis. This is a very important ability in an English-speaking country, so it's thoroughly reasonable that white people will get jobs in higher proportion than Pakistanis and Bangladeshis.

And my response was an obvious over-the-top response to your over-the-top ignorance. You were implying that ability to speak the language is a trump card that negates the validity of the study, which is a blindingly fucking stupid, unfounded assertion that you can not back up... and which also implies that you believe that thought process to be an actual statistically relevant factor, which led to my satirical response.

A smart person would have gotten that... I thought you said you were smart?

Posted by: strange gods before me | September 23, 2009 11:52 AM

And despite the fact the people in question live in the UK and were educated here.

And even speaking English as a native language isn't enough to overcome institutional racism:

"Having been born in the UK also tends to exert a positive influence on the probability of having a professional/managerial occupation but the impact of this variable is not generally that strong."

Posted by: Carlie | September 23, 2009 11:55 AM

My argument only entails that on average, white people in Britain will speak English better than Pakistanis and Bangladeshis.

You mean
like this

or this

or this (starting at 1:45) ?

Posted by: Hyperon | September 23, 2009 11:59 AM

Most Pakistanis and Bangladeshis speak their own language at home and aren't familiar with British culture.

Posted by: Carlie | September 23, 2009 12:03 PM

Oh my god. Are you even listening to yourself? For one, people who speak English as a second language often have a much better handle on it than native speakers, because they actually pay attention to learning it. Second, how exactly does living in Britain mean that one isn't familiar with British culture?

They come across as rather insular and shy.

With people as open and friendly as you to interact with, I'm shocked that they wouldn't avail themselves of every opportunity.

And next we can talk about how all Asians are good at math!

Posted by: mister-fire | September 23, 2009 12:05 PM

Don't get excited

Too late for that, sweetheart.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | September 23, 2009 12:12 PM

Oh my god. Are you even listening to yourself? For one, people who speak English as a second language often have a much better handle on it than native speakers, because they actually pay attention to learning it. Second, how exactly does living in Britain mean that one isn't familiar with British culture?

In the study I cited, the people concerned were so unintergrated they were able to get dammed good grades at A level (probably straight A's, with at least two science subjects). They were also so poor at English they were able to complete an application form for entry into medical school. They were also so lacking in skills that they were able to make their way to an interview, and pass it, even though the interview was conducted in a language they could not speak. They were then able to complete 6 years of study and clinical experience, all whilst being unable to communicate.

Pretty fucking impressive if you ask me.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | September 23, 2009 12:13 PM

What I suspect you're doing is mistaking racism for unconscious solidarity with one's own culture.

Yes, white supremacists never use that gambit.

Posted by: Hyperon | September 23, 2009 12:19 PM

In the study I cited, the people concerned were so unintergrated they were able to get dammed good grades at A level (probably straight A's, with at least two science subjects)...Pretty fucking impressive if you ask me.

Anyway, I've had enough of this nonsense for today.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | September 23, 2009 12:22 PM

Anyway, I've had enough of this nonsense for today.

Yes, you've been spouting a Augean stable's worth of it today.

Posted by: strange gods before me | September 23, 2009 12:24 PM

Of course the racist crank made no attempt to discuss the institutional racism demonstrated in drug arrests and prosecutions. Yet somehow I'm sure there's really "reverse discrimination" going on there.

Posted by: Knockgoats | September 23, 2009 12:26 PM

Most Pakistanis and Bangladeshis speak their own language at home and aren't familiar with British culture. They come across as rather insular and shy. Other things being equal, there's no reason to employ them. You would rather have someone who does know the customs well, someone with whom you can have good banter, than someone who spends most of his time outside work in the midst of foreign language and customs. - Hyperon

Note that the research cited showed that just having an Asian name was a considerable disadvantage, even if born in Britain. How exactly someone could go through British school and a British medical degree while remaining ignorant of English, or of British customs, is a mystery. That Hyperon is unable to see that discrimination in employment based on the grounds he thinks perfectly acceptable is racist, however, is no mystery at all: it is quite typical of racist thought-processes.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | September 23, 2009 12:29 PM

No wonder Hyperon has been concerned about our tone to "conservative" positions. He was hiding his baggage. Which he really needs to take a good look if he ever intends to post here again. He is one sick puppy.

Posted by: Carlie | September 23, 2009 12:31 PM

It was not a clear example of racism, it was a clear example of bias against with people with greater likelihood to not be well-acquainted with British customs.

Once more, IT IS RACISM TO ASSUME THAT PEOPLE WITH AN ETHNIC NAME, OR FOR THAT MATTER MEMBERS OF AN ETHNIC MINORITY GROUP, ARE AUTOMATICALLY NOT ACQUAINTED WITH THE CUSTOMS OF THE MAJORITY. You are so seriously not getting it.

Posted by: mister-fire | September 23, 2009 12:38 PM

Anyway, I've had enough of this nonsense for today.

If Pharyngulites have a discussion and Hyperon isn't there to see it, do they exist?

Posted by: Matt Penfold | September 23, 2009 12:42 PM

I should not have to do this, but since Hyperon is so dense it probably will not have occurred to him.

If an applicant cannot speak English well, or is rabidly fundamentalist, or can show no understanding of British culture then those could all be reasonable grounds for not employing that person.

However none of those things can be determined at the CV sifting stage if the CV is written in competent English.

It a hospital covers an area that is poor, then it could be argued a doctor who comes from a wealthy family and attended an expensive public school could be unaware of the social conditions of his or her potential patients. Nor does being a white doctor mean you are not a religious fundamentalist. Adrian Rogers, a GP in Exeter comes to mind. He was a Tory candidate for Exeter in the 1997 election. He readily espoused his views that homosexuals had a deviant lifestyle. (Glad to report that he proved too extreme even for the Conservatives and was not allowed to stand for them again).

What Hyperon claims discriminating against those with Asian names achieves is not actually achieved. It is just an excuse to avoid dealing with racism.

Posted by: Walton | September 23, 2009 12:47 PM

Following on from my comments above: Hyperon expressed, on another thread, the view that nations and national boundaries were arbitrary concepts and that we would be better off in a world without nations. I find it hard to understand, therefore, why he is suddenly defending racial discrimination and "solidarity with one's own culture" as if these were morally acceptable phenomena. I can only conclude that the "Hyperon" on this thread is not the same Hyperon.

As a recent victim of impersonation myself, I can attest to the fact that even regular Pharyngulites sometimes don't spot the difference between real and fake. Thankfully, as I've been around a very long time, a few people correctly identified the impersonator; had this not been the case, I could well have ended up being banned for something I didn't do. Obviously, Hyperon has not been commenting here for very long, and I don't know him well enough to claim with absolute confidence that he's being impersonated. But it's my gut feeling.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | September 23, 2009 12:50 PM

(2) in fact I'm smarter than everyone or mostly everyone here, and...

I'm neither as smart nor as educated as mostly everyone here. That's why it pays for me to be here. Intellectual dividends.

Posted by: strange gods before me | September 23, 2009 12:54 PM

I'm skeptical that nowadays many people actually buy the idea that someone can be inferior merely due to the colour of his skin.

That isn't all that racism is. Sometimes it's saying "African-American culture IS singularly primitive and violent."

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | September 23, 2009 12:58 PM

Hyperon at #228

The reason I think these claims of racism deserve close scrutiny is that I'm skeptical that nowadays many people actually buy the idea that someone can be inferior merely due to the colour of his skin.

O rly?

Hyperon at #66

African-American culture IS singularly primitive and violent. This is what all the data indicates.

Even allowing for the fact that you later said it was a mistake to have said that, it still seemed rather easy for it to roll off your tongue, considering how skeptical you are that real racism exists... and it certainly doesn't match up with your statement that "it is just such a primitive, obviously wrong idea, contradicted by hundreds of ubiquitous examples, that it is very, very difficult for anyone to hold."...

Posted by: Brownian, OM | September 23, 2009 1:09 PM

As a recent victim of impersonation myself, I can attest to the fact that even regular Pharyngulites sometimes don't spot the difference between real and fake. Thankfully, as I've been around a very long time, a few people correctly identified the impersonator; had this not been the case, I could well have ended up being banned for something I didn't do. Obviously, Hyperon has not been commenting here for very long, and I don't know him well enough to claim with absolute confidence that he's being impersonated. But it's my gut feeling.

That's why I've worked so hard to cultivate a persona that's hard to impersonate. Few mortals can sustainably channel Beavis and Butt-head and still carry on a semi-cogent conversation. (In fact, I briefly worried that someone might have thought I was an impersonator earlier upthread when I referenced bone flutes and two rocks banging with nary a titter. Uh-huh. I wrote, 'titter'.)

However, in some ways I'm not all that unique. Like Hyperon, I think racism is an antiquated mode of thought that's been thoroughly refuted by the evidence and is still overtly held only by a small contingent of the woefully ignorant. Also, like Hyperon, I think any GP not named O'MacSmith is potential Muslim terrorist whom I wouldn't trust to lance a boil.

Posted by: Hyperon | September 23, 2009 1:15 PM

I keep getting dragged back in, so I will have to draw the line after dealing with this one more piece of stupidity.

I find it hard to understand, therefore, why he is suddenly defending racial discrimination and "solidarity with one's own culture" as if these were morally acceptable phenomena.

"Solidarity with one's own culture" is definitely acceptable in the context I was writing, which was rather along the lines of "On average, preferring to speak to British men to men raised in Pakistani families [likely to be fundamentalist Muslims, by the way, which proves my point about cultural differences]".

Whether this should be a factor in assessing job applications is more subtle. Certainly there's a coherent case to be made for it. Due to the placebo effect, it might be medically better to have doctors that are likely to humour their patients. Now assume you're going to randomly pick someone from each of two groups, Anglo-Saxon men and Pakistani men. Which is more likely to relate to patients in, say, a Lancashire practice? Which is more likely to humour them: someone who probably spent all his life in British culture, or someone who's probably a Muslim fundamentalist who disapproves of alcohol, and spends a substantial chunk of his time attending to Pakistani traditions?

Obviously, Hyperon has not been commenting here for very long, and I don't know him well enough to claim with absolute confidence that he's being impersonated. But it's my gut feeling.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | September 23, 2009 1:18 PM

Don't be silly Lynna. You hold your own here very well.

Posted by: AJ Milne | September 23, 2009 1:18 PM

Few mortals can sustainably channel Beavis and Butt-head and still carry on a semi-cogent conversation...

See... that's just askin' for it, guy... I mean, you must know how some of us like a challenge...

(/Anyway. Weren't we talking about hiphoppish things? In my ever so umble opinion, this is a good hiphoppish thing.)

Posted by: Carlie | September 23, 2009 1:24 PM

Few mortals can sustainably channel Beavis and Butt-head and still carry on a semi-cogent conversation.

Heh heh heh - Brownian wrote "butt".

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | September 23, 2009 1:28 PM

No, I'm not being impersonated

Not altogether surprised, really...

essentially everything I have said in this thread makes perfect sense...

despite ample provided evidence to the contrary...

...and is thoroughly defensible

Despite the complete lack of substantive material provided in that defense...

Yeah... we get it, bright eyes... you're a genius and you don't have to prove it to anyone.

No... you are a sad, self-impressed little wanker who can't admit when he's wrong, or that he may at the very least be woefully unqualified to speak authoritatively on certain subjects, despite it being shown to be the case repeatedly.

You're just another rank asshole with an over-inflated sense of self, Hyperon... grow up and learn to learn... you're less than half as smart as you think you are and not nearly as intelligent as most of the regular commenters here. There's been some pretty informative stuff tossed at you in this thread... no go and show us you're as smart as you claim to be by actually taking some time to look into what you've been given and learn something.

Posted by: Patricia, Ignorant Slut OM | September 23, 2009 1:30 PM

Oh come on Strange Gods, you can speak plainer than that! Do you mean to say, if there's a cow flop on the sidewalk Walton will surely step in it?

Posted by: Walton | September 23, 2009 1:30 PM

OK, Hyperon:

If you weren't such a coward, allowing yourself to be bullied into thinking like a sheep, you would see that arbitrary boundaries have NOTHING to do with cultures being different. Obviously some cultures are quite alien to people from some other cultures. No boundaries have to be drawn anywhere.

Considering that I have a long, long, long history of disagreeing with the consensus on Pharyngula on a variety of issues, and have taken a lot of abuse for it in the past, I don't think it's fair to accuse me of "allowing [myself] to be bullied into thinking like a sheep." However, I think your comments on this thread are both profoundly wrong and rather offensive.

Yes, obviously cultures, unlike national boundaries, are not arbitrary and do have some significance. But I fail to see how that makes it OK to discriminate between candidate A and candidate B on the basis of their ethnicity, simply because you think that people of certain ethnicities are unlikely to be "culturally British" enough (whatever that might mean).

Now assume you're going to randomly pick someone from each of two groups, Anglo-Saxon men and Pakistani men. Which is more likely to relate to patients in, say, a Lancashire practice? Which is more likely to humour them: someone who probably spent all his life in British culture, or someone who's probably a Muslim fundamentalist who disapproves of alcohol, and spends a substantial chunk of his time attending to Pakistani traditions?

You're making a lot of false assumptions here. There are substantial numbers of British citizens of Pakistani extraction who are not Muslim fundamentalists. You're simply ignoring the vast numbers of British citizens of non-white ethnic origins who were born and raised in the UK, have lived and worked in the UK all their lives, and have, as you put it, "spent all their lives in British culture". You're justifying arbitrary discrimination on the grounds of someone's ethnicity - and this, however much you try to dress it up, is racism.

Posted by: Walton | September 23, 2009 1:33 PM

Walton, one of the purposes of signing in is to avoid impersonations, since TypePad/Key allows only one user by that name. In his last post Hyperon used TypePad/Key, which he also used in the Socialist thread, and in Thread 9.

OK, so he's not being impersonated. He really is an apologist for racism.

Posted by: Benjamin Geiger | September 23, 2009 1:34 PM

Lemme throw my pair o'cents in:

It really comes down to cultures more than races, and from what I've seen, near-poverty-line culture is driven mostly by lack of resources. Different races may have different expressions of the same basic culture, but they're shaped by fundamentally the same forces.

(Full disclosure: I'm a white male from a poor family who has generally managed to escape.)

"Ghetto" culture has dew-rags and saggy pants.
"Redneck" culture has cowboy hats, giant belt buckles, and saggy pants.

"Ghetto" culture has old, ragged cars with the suspension lowered.
"Redneck" culture has old, ragged trucks with the suspension raised.

Both cultures have very similar foods, typically derived from "lower-quality" cuts of meat and inexpensive vegetables.

"Ghetto" culture has loud, obnoxious, violent rap music.
"Redneck" culture has loud, obnoxious, violent country music. ("We'll stick a boot in your ass, it's the American way")

And both cultures tend to be xenophobic, with stronger hatred for more similar cultures.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | September 23, 2009 1:39 PM

No, I'm not being impersonated, and essentially everything I have said in this thread makes perfect sense and is thoroughly defensible, with the exception of one or two overstated claims.

Bullshit. You are just so full of yourself. But we see through your facade to your dirty inner self.

Oh, come now. It's not bullshit to the racist mind.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | September 23, 2009 1:44 PM

I think it goes further than Hyperon being an apologist for racism. He does actually seem to be a racist.

Posted by: strange gods before me | September 23, 2009 1:49 PM

Racist attitudes in the United States, graphed from the General Social Survey:

"White people have a right to keep blacks out of their neighborhoods if they want to, and blacks should respect that right."

"How often have you felt admiration for blacks?"

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | September 23, 2009 1:49 PM

I feel you can also add sexist to his list of faults. He has shown this in the past. The guy has some problems. And he definitely reminds me of the good ol' boy southern crackers with his attitudes.

Have folks seen Alexandra Pelosi's "Feeling Wronged in Right America"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGPOtRK7lCI

Start at about 5:53. We've found hyperon.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | September 23, 2009 1:56 PM

Before the Rev. BDC gets on my case, I should point out that crackers can also be found in my area here in the suburbs of Chiwaukee.

Hyperon still isn't intelligent enough to STFU. Which is why he keeps demonstrating he isn't as smart as he thinks he is.

Posted by: Hyperon | September 23, 2009 1:57 PM

To clarify that last point. If in the Everington and Esmail experiment, we were to have all information about applicants at hand -- including their personality type, their religious stance, and their level of familiarity with the native culture -- then "rough and ready" judgements, which take ethnic background into account, would not be at all justified. However, without that information, it is possible that ethnic background is statistically useful for maximizing chances of applicants with various characteristics (I'm not saying employers should be allowed to use such methods). Clearly, if one of the desirable characteristics is familiarity with Indian cuisine, then it might be advisable to give priority to applicants with Indian names.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | September 23, 2009 2:05 PM

I wonder, is kicking a bunch of African-American kids out of a swimming pool racist? Can't be in a society where white folks are the ones suffering from racism, can it?

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/20090922_State_rules_Montco_pool_discriminated_by_banning_campers.html

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | September 23, 2009 2:15 PM

I understand that Hyperion has moved on to greener pastures, but did we ever get that definition of 'African-American ghetto culture' several of us asked for?

Posted by: Walton | September 23, 2009 2:23 PM

OK, Hyperon, maybe I misunderstood your comments, and perhaps I shouldn't have been so quick to label you an apologist for racism. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and I apologise if I misinterpreted what you were saying.

However, I still think you're wrong. Even as a "rough and ready estimation" and even in the absence of other information about individuals' characteristics, I don't think it's useful, or morally acceptable, to make any kind of provisional assumption about people's personalities based on their ethnic origin. Tolerating such a practice will inevitably contribute to institutionalising discrimination. And, considering the nature of some of your remarks on this thread, I hope you can understand why many people here - not just me - interpreted your comments as a defence of racism.

Posted by: strange gods before me | September 23, 2009 2:26 PM

Continued institutionalized oppression -- which is overwhelmingly outweighed, to the point that it's really quite laughable, by reverse discrimination and affirmative action.

Studying stupidity:

A majority of white Americans have fundamental misconceptions about the economic circumstances of black Americans, with most saying that the average black is faring as well or better than the average white in such specific areas as jobs, education and health care. That's not true. Government statistics show that whites, on average, earn 60 percent more than blacks, are far more likely to have medical insurance and more than twice as likely to graduate from college.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | September 23, 2009 2:34 PM

I wonder if he has any thoughts on the Gay Lifestyle while he's at it.

which one? ;-)

The London Pakistani ghetto gay lifestyle, of course...

Posted by: strange gods before me | September 23, 2009 2:39 PM

An introduction to today's racism, courtesy of Dr. Catherine A. Cottrell:

Modern-symbolic racism

* These beliefs portray Black people as morally inferior to White people because Black people supposedly violate traditional (White) American values.

* Rooted in cultural stereotypes of outgroups and cultural values rather than in people’s direct experiences with members of those groups.

* Avoids blatant derogation of outgroups.

Modern racists do not consider themselves racist for two reasons:

* They consider only old-fashioned racism to be “racism.”

* Their subtle negative feelings toward Blacks are disguised in order to prevent dissonance associated with conflict between their prejudice and egalitarian values.

Five themes of these racist beliefs:

1 Racial prejudice and discrimination no longer exist.

2 Any remaining Black-White differences in economic outcomes result from Black people’s lack of motivation to work hard enough.

3 Because Black people are unwilling to work to get what they want, their continuing anger over inequality is unjustified.

4 Rather than working to get ahead, Black people seek special flavors.

5 Relative to White people, Black people have been getting more than they deserve economically.

Posted by: Brownian, OM | September 23, 2009 2:42 PM

I wonder if he has any thoughts on the Gay Lifestyle while he's at it.

which one? ;-)

The London Pakistani ghetto gay lifestyle, of course...

Don't be dense. London Pakistanis are singularly Muslim and so PROBABLY eschew homosexuality as well as alcohol.

C'mon people, we all know this.

Posted by: Hyperon | September 23, 2009 2:45 PM

However, I still think you're wrong. Even as a "rough and ready estimation" and even in the absence of other information about individuals' characteristics, I don't think it's useful, or morally acceptable, to make any kind of provisional assumption about people's personalities based on their ethnic origin. Tolerating such a practice will inevitably contribute to institutionalising discrimination.

I agree with you though that in general it's not morally acceptable for employers to use these methods.

And, considering the nature of some of your remarks on this thread, I hope you can understand why many people here - not just me - interpreted your comments as a defence of racism.

Posted by: Brownian, OM | September 23, 2009 2:55 PM

Whenever I encounter the name "Mohammed", I feel uneasy, because I know that statistically there's a good chance I will be dealing with a Muslim fundamentalist. More often than not my fears are confirmed.

More often than not, the Mohammed's you've met are Muslim fundamentalists?

Unless you're living in Bin Laden's cave, you're an out-and-out liar and an idiot.

It's their limitations, their failings -- not mine.

Given how many times in this thread alone you've had to explain (and retract) previous comments, the fault lies in the fact that you're borderline illiterate and an idiot.

Now fuck off as you've promised to do so many times before, you little piece of shit.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | September 23, 2009 3:07 PM

You deny the existence of institutional racism.

The past 350 years of American history, and particularly the institutionalization of white supremacy, never took place. The real problem is institutionalized "reverse discrimination" against whites. Didn't you get the memo? The white male is the jew of liberal fascism, after all. That's obviously what hyperon is up against.

Posted by: mister-fire | September 23, 2009 3:10 PM

Hyperon said:

Precisely why I used the word PROBABLY. Undoubtedly, those of Pakistani origin have a greater chance than those of British origin of being Muslim fundamentalists. I was not for a second making claims about all Pakistanis. Not my fault you're too stupid and ignorant to see this.

Yes, of course Pakistanis have a greater chance of being fundamentalist muslims than their Anglo-Saxon peers. But that's not what you said. You said:

Which is more likely to humour them: someone who probably spent all his life in British culture, or someone who's probably a Muslim fundamentalist

I don't see how you're not making claims about all Pakistanis here.

Perhaps, ironically, your grasp of English - your own English - is not very good.

Posted by: toth | September 23, 2009 3:36 PM

4 Rather than working to get ahead, Black people seek special flavors.

I knew Ben & Jerry's was catering to the Affirmative Action crowd!

Posted by: strange gods before me | September 23, 2009 3:52 PM

I knew Ben & Jerry's was catering to the Affirmative Action crowd!

I saw that only after I posted it, and I wondered what would come of it. :) I was hoping a little Dave Chappelle.

Posted by: bonze | September 23, 2009 4:57 PM

Carlie #280

Feeling more confident in your doctor because they share the same ethnicity as you = racism.

If the doctor is question is a psychiatrist, I would have to disagree strongly with this equation.

E.g., beliefs most Pharyngulites would categorize as delusional don't qualify clinically because they're culturally congruent, despite the fact that many people hold these beliefs with fanatic intensity and cannot be swayed by reasonable evidence. However, a clinician who doesn't understand or accept your cultural background is more likely to categorize certain beliefs as delusional (e.g., Voodoo religious beliefs).

If a psychiatrist or psychologist does not fully comprehend the patient's dialect, including idiomatic expressions, misunderstandings can lead to serious mistakes in diagnosis and treatment.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | September 23, 2009 5:06 PM

You can't think for yourselves, and you're more interested in showing off how liberal you are than in understanding anything or helping anyone.

blah blah blah blah blah

Posted by: Carlie | September 23, 2009 5:10 PM

Nice of you to apologize to Walton, who was after all trying to help.

I am quite interested in the "you can't think for yourselves" claim. Is that just because we don't agree with you, Hyperon? You say Walton can, after a fashion, and I wonder if you think that simply because he did agree with you in one point.

Oh, wait, maybe I get it. Wait, I'm having an epiphany.

Is it that citing sources = not thinking for ourselves? Do you think that the fact that our opinions are shaped by evidence means that we haven't made our conclusions ourselves? Is it only people who eschew any type of corroboration who are independent thinkers? Suddenly so much of conservative Republican anti-intellectualism makes sense. If you learn things, your mind is no longer your own. It has been hijacked by the thinkings of others. Every time someone backs up a clam with evidence, that's actually bad because they're citing works of someone else, meaning that they did not, in fact, think it all up themselves!

Oh my god. It's all clear to me now.

Posted by: Hyperon | September 23, 2009 5:13 PM

How do you justify arresting and imprisoning black people for drug crimes at a rate six times higher than white people?Well the most obvious response is that maybe they commit drug crimes at a rate that's six times higher. How do you know this isn't case?

Posted by: Anri | September 23, 2009 5:17 PM

Yanno, Rev, I don't think we're ever going to get the definition of 'African-American ghetto culture' from ol' Hyperion here...

Pity.

Posted by: strange gods before me | September 23, 2009 5:19 PM

Well the most obvious response is that maybe they commit drug crimes at a rate that's six times higher. How do you know this isn't case?

Because I'm not a racist crank, and I actually read the research, instead of making hateful assumptions:

"an estimated 49 percent of whites and 42.9 percent of blacks age 12 or older have used illicit drugs in their lifetime; 14.5 percent of whites and 16 percent of blacks have used illicit drugs in the past year; and 8.5 percent of whites and 9.8 percent of blacks have used an illicit drug in the past month"

Posted by: Hyperon | September 23, 2009 5:25 PM

Is it that citing sources = not thinking for ourselves? Do you think that the fact that our opinions are shaped by evidence means that we haven't made our conclusions ourselves

It's taboo in academia to even suggest the possibility that institutionalized racism is overwhelmed by affirmative action, so I don't expect there to be any studies bearing this out. That's the asymmetry, really. Your position has long been fashionable, mine quite the opposite.

And no, don't try to pretend that your position is fashionable because of and only because of the evidence. The hysteria in this thread clearly goes a lot further than evidence (and, let's face it, most people arguing against me don't know any more about the social sciences than I do). I tried to keep this empirical, but you and others insisted on making it personal.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | September 23, 2009 5:31 PM

I tried to keep this empirical

When did you do that?

Do you have any evidence that the "culture of affirmative action" is more powerful than institutionalized racism? Do you have any evidence that the half-assed institutional processes of the last 40 years have not only erased but overwhelmed those of the previous 350? Anything? No. You complain about people not being social scientists, and then when actual social scientific data is presented, you fall back on the creationist strategy of "there's a huge conspiracy in academia!"

Your a racist fucking cracker.

Posted by: strange gods before me | September 23, 2009 5:33 PM

It's taboo in academia to even suggest the possibility that institutionalized racism is overwhelmed by affirmative action, so I don't expect there to be any studies bearing this out. That's the asymmetry, really. Your position has long been fashionable, mine quite the opposite.

Just like Galileo!

Posted by: bonze | September 23, 2009 5:37 PM

strange gods before me #298

How do you justify arresting and imprisoning black people for drug crimes at a rate six times higher than white people?

Hyperon #301

Well the most obvious response is that maybe they commit drug crimes at a rate that's six times higher. How do you know this isn't case?

Oh duh. Ummm... because drug use statistics show that usage rates don't differ significantly? (Except for that crack/powder cocaine use disparity, where the disparity in penalties pounds in the point that these laws are racially motivated.)

The correct answer, Hyperon, is that the laws were created in the very first instance to prevent opium-addled Chinamen, marihuana-crazed Mexicans, and cocaine-blitzed Negroes from sullying the virtue of our White Women, and that they're functioning just as intended. And additionally they've proved very useful in politically-motivated prosecutions (John Sinclair), preventing cheap competition to the products of Big Pharma and the logging industry, and as stepping stones towards the total evisceration of our civil rights.

And if the CIA is running a little short of funds for black ops... CLOSE YOUR EYES DAMMIT, AND THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

Posted by: strange gods before me | September 23, 2009 5:40 PM

bonze, that's just your liberal groupthink talking ;-)

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | September 23, 2009 5:43 PM

I'm going for tonight, assuming I can resist getting dragged back in.

Bleaching the sheets?

Posted by: Carlie | September 23, 2009 5:44 PM

It must be such a bitter life, thinking that women are bitches and black people steal your jobs and commit all the crimes and brown people talk bad English and can't relate to your culture.

Posted by: Hyperon | September 23, 2009 5:48 PM

Any of them. Take your pick.

Before whining again, tell me which claims you'd like me to substantiate. Otherwise shut the fuck up.

Posted by: Brownian, OM | September 23, 2009 5:50 PM

I'm going for tonight, assuming I can resist getting dragged back in.

Bleaching the sheets?

MAJeff, I think I love you.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | September 23, 2009 5:53 PM

Psst. Nobody tell him about the racist origins of anthropology

I was actually thinking about exactly that somewhere in the thread.

Posted by: Brownian, OM | September 23, 2009 5:56 PM

Almost all assertions I've made are logical points.

So, not a sociologist and not a logician, either.

Have you ever studied anything?

Total bullshit. Almost all assertions I've made are logical points. The few empirical points I require seem to be such trivial common knowledge that it seem ridiculous to look for supporting links (and, despite your fantasies, any idiot can use Google -- I've been using it for many years).

Before whining again, tell me which claims you'd like me to substantiate. Otherwise shut the fuck up.

How about the Mohammed = Muslim fundamentalist one, fuckhead?

OK, you're an unbelievably dishonest, lying fanatic, and I'm not going to have anything more to do with you.

Actually, you're in no position to be assailing anyone else, given your lack of understanding of science, empiricism, and logic, you mewling little puke.

Posted by: strange gods before me | September 23, 2009 6:04 PM

(f) PZ hasn't been around long enough to know a racist.
(g) White people are the real victims of racism, thus,
(h) calling a white person a cracker is just as bad as calling a black person a nigger, maybe even worse.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | September 23, 2009 6:13 PM

(j) The Dunning Kruger effect doesn't apply to Hyperion because he's a Super Genius

Posted by: Bobber | September 23, 2009 6:14 PM

I still can't get over that I'm "fashionable" in my liberalism. Yeah, it's real "fashionable" to be a liberal atheist in rural NC. I just hold these opinions because everyone else around me does.

(Damn, the eyes rolled so hard they hit the floor running. Be back when I can see again.)

Posted by: Bobber | September 23, 2009 6:18 PM

Super Genius.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | September 23, 2009 6:22 PM

OK, you're an unbelievably dishonest, lying fanatic, and I'm not going to have anything more to do with you.

Posted by: Anri | September 23, 2009 6:25 PM

Rev sez:

(j) The Dunning Kruger effect doesn't apply to Hyperion because he's a Super Genius

"Wile E. Coyote... Super Genius! I like the way that kind of rolls out..."
Heh.

Hyperion sez:

Tell me what assertions I need to back up, and then I'll get some data.

A definition of terms, such as... (well, what have I been asking for, hmm?) would at least be a nice start.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | September 23, 2009 6:47 PM

Tell me what assertions I need to back up, and then I'll get some data.

How about your comment in #55:

I don't have to be an "expert" to know that the culture in African-American ghettos is singularly primitive and violent.

And your comment in #98:

It's universally known that for the United States these are singularly violent places with singularly bad economic conditions.

And I'd particularly like to see evidence for your completely unsupported assertion in #186:

in fact I'm smarter than everyone or mostly everyone here

Posted by: Carlie | September 23, 2009 7:02 PM

Famous last words. Now back them up by fading into the bandwidth forever...

Nah, Nerd, he's just going to ignore me personally, not leave altogether. Never mind that I didn't actually mention him in my post, I just opined that it would be a bad life if one did have those beliefs. If they all happen to line up with things Hyperon has written in this thread, well, that's not really my fault.

Although, I'm still laughing at the "person with an Indian name knows more about Indian food than a person with a non-Indian name" one.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | September 23, 2009 7:09 PM

Carlie, you are probably right. Between Hyperon the super yutz, and HMB the total fool, PZ is going to have to run a couple of rounds of Survivor Pharyngula to reduce the stupid level of the blog some.

John #340, amen brother.

Posted by: strange gods before me | September 23, 2009 7:16 PM

I'm sure that would be a repeat of AG's grandstanding.

Posted by: strange gods before me | September 23, 2009 7:49 PM

According to Hyperon's standards, by which racism is limited to "the idea that someone can be inferior merely due to the colour of his skin", this woman is not a racist:

Hate is a misconception that the mainstream media puts out there to the general denizens to help silence us. The majority of us don't hate. Yes, we have some radicals in our movement, but what movement doesn't? Most of us are pro-white, pro-constitution, but when we step forward and say that we are proud to be white, immediately we are called racists and Nazi's. I can't speak for all people, but when I know that I promote heritage not hate. This new generation of White Nationalism isn't about hate. We are pro-white and pro-constitution. We want to preserve the ideals and beliefs that our forefathers started our nation on. And from our standpoint, most blacks and illegal immigrants exploit our country through freebies. Welfare, food stamps, free medical... they are not embracing the ideals that we as whites hold. Their lack of family morals and values have declined our nation's own morals and values and have compromised what we, as hardworking American citizens hold dear to us. [...] I would applaud any immigrant who went through the system, took their classes, learned the constitution and laws of our nation, took a job that is contributing to society, a legal job mind you [...]

Posted by: gyeong-hwa | September 23, 2009 7:52 PM

SGBM
Isn't that almost exactly what Hyperon said?

Posted by: strange gods before me | September 23, 2009 7:54 PM

I wonder how Hyperoon would explain the doll test.

Posted by: strange gods before me | September 23, 2009 7:58 PM

gyeong-hwa, maybe so; close enough to remind me of it

Posted by: Carlie | September 23, 2009 8:03 PM

That mention of de-naming resumes reminded me of the blind audition study on orchestras. Amazingly, when one can't see any markers of who a person is, diversity in hiring increases! Why, it's almost as if people have implicit biases for and against certain types of other people that are unrelated to ability or performance!

Posted by: gyeong-hwa | September 23, 2009 8:07 PM

I wonder how Hyperoon would explain the doll test.

I remember watching about this in my intro to race and ethnicity class. It really shows the type of culture these children are brought up with that they should believe themselves to be inferior. Utterly disturbing.

The most absurd thing hyperon said was that people named "Mohammed" were generally fundamentalist Muslims. Would he make the assumption that I speak Korean on the basis of my last name being Kim?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | September 23, 2009 8:14 PM

Amazingly, when one can't see any markers of who a person is, diversity in hiring increases! Why, it's almost as if people have implicit biases for and against certain types of other people that are unrelated to ability or performance!

Posted by: strange gods before me | September 23, 2009 8:16 PM

Jadehawk: First video, I'm guessing they're about 8-11, second video they look about 5-8. I don't have kids and I'm no good at this, though; I always guess high when I'm talking to a kid because they'll take it as a compliment.

The second video is a clip from A Girl Like Me by Kiri Davis.

There's a Danish version of the doll test too. I wish I had a transcript.

Posted by: John Morales | September 23, 2009 8:23 PM

Ouch!

I find that 'doll test' footage very disturbing.

Posted by: Kel, OM | September 23, 2009 8:46 PM

if Rap is a source of evil in the world for the violence and hate in its lyrics and the sub-culture surrounding it, then what is Punk?

Just glad that black metal is esoteric enough to avoid scrutiny ;)

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | September 23, 2009 9:11 PM

I thought about Black Metal, but thought that would be too obvious(or possibly counterproductive, depending on Hyperon's level of ignorance on that subject).

but now it doesn't matter, you and SGBM have ruined my insinuation completely ;-)

Posted by: strange gods before me | September 23, 2009 9:12 PM

Jadehawk:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/214989/

It was no surprise that in a liberal city like Austin, every parent was a welcoming multiculturalist, embracing diversity. But according to Vittrup's entry surveys, hardly any of these white parents had ever talked to their children directly about race. They might have asserted vague principles—like "Everybody's equal" or "God made all of us" or "Under the skin, we're all the same"—but they'd almost never called attention to racial differences.

They wanted their children to grow up colorblind. But Vittrup's first test of the kids revealed they weren't colorblind at all. Asked how many white people are mean, these children commonly answered, "Almost none." Asked how many blacks are mean, many answered, "Some," or "A lot." Even kids who attended diverse schools answered the questions this way.

More disturbing, Vittrup also asked all the kids a very blunt question: "Do your parents like black people?" Fourteen percent said outright, "No, my parents don't like black people"; 38 percent of the kids answered, "I don't know." In this supposed race-free vacuum being created by parents, kids were left to improvise their own conclusions—many of which would be abhorrent to their parents.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | September 23, 2009 9:27 PM

thanks SGBM for that article. that was really fascinating, and another example of the fact that ignoring an issue won't make it go away.

Posted by: Desert Son, OM | September 23, 2009 9:52 PM

Jadehawk, OM, et al.,

Another good title on the subject of ignoring an issue in hopes it goes away is Mica Pollock's Colormute, an ethnography of a high school in southern California in the late 1990s/early 2000s. The reference is:

Pollock, M. (2004). Colormute. Princeton,NJ: Princeton University Press.

As far as how early do children learn this stuff, the studies seem to show it's pretty early. The Van Ausdale text I cited in #346 talks a little about that.

One of the great problems with claims of "reverse-discrimination" is that such an idea relies on the notion that we actually have, in this country, a meritocracy, which is patently untrue.

O.k., I've procrastinated studying for my statistics test too much already, so back to it.

No kings,

Robert

Posted by: skeptifem | September 24, 2009 1:03 AM

Hyperon-
"That's just a lame excuse to pin on "the white man" the blame for the misogynistic, savage hip hop culture that was born in African-American ghettos."

What the hell are you talking about? Listen to old rap dude, like the rap music that was actually born in black neighborhoods in america. (hint: 1970's). it is embarrassingly tame, and a lot of it is about how shitty and scary it is to live around violence.

Having a libertarian argue against hook's assertions is downright silly. Violent/misogynist rap music sold the most, so they made more of it, in order to sell more. It is very much what you expect any producer of goods to do, to maximize profits. There is also the idea that the people who promoted the violent music aren't to blame at all, even though they allowed it to become extremely popular and made money off of that. Calling on the rappers to be responsible in securing money for themselves while ignoring the responsibility of everyone else involved is extremely hypocritical.

You are being extremely dismissive of the points made by bell hooks without supporting them at all. I also suspect you didn't listen to what she had to say. I don't know why black people should blame themselves for the color caste system existing, much less having it be repeated in rap music videos all the time.

Not to mention that rap becoming mainstream BY DEFINITION means marketing it to white audiences. White people make up 70ish percent of the population, and are in general more able to buy luxury items like music. Where did all the tame rap go when rap was being promoted in the mainstream media? Who do you think was calling the shots on who to sign after seeing what sold to the mainstream (as in white) audiences? Do you know how rare it is for a record executive to not be a white guy? There isn't some kind of fault for it that extends to every white person, but dismissing the idea that blackness has been used as a commodity for some rich white people is pretty friggin shameful. It takes a powerful level of ignorance to not see this happening.

Posted by: the_fishiologist | September 24, 2009 3:32 AM

wow. So I just found this blog, and I was mildly entertained by the video posted above and was about to scroll down and say that it kind of reminds me of the Large Hadron Rap.

and then I started reading. and by the time Carlie had made it through her "4 steps to determining if you are a racist" (#280), I was laughing so hard I had tears in my eyes. Hyperon, I often tell people that I don't really believe in stupidity because I think that almost everyone is "smart" in some sort of way... but I believe you've just changed my mind. Your profound ignorance of your own racism (most guys named Mohammed are fundamentalist Muslims?!! srsly?!!) is all the empirical proof I need of your idiocy.

The rest of you all rock. I'll be back :)

Posted by: Walton | September 24, 2009 5:07 AM

strange gods,

And a note for Walton:

You would recognize Holocaust denialism as a defense of antisemitism, whether or not it was intended as such.

Why do you give a pass to someone who denies the existence of institutional racism against black people?

I don't. As I believe I've made clear, I strongly disagree with the views Hyperon has expressed on this thread. Institutional racism is, demonstrably, a serious and continuing problem in many contexts, and there is still a clear need for more steps to be taken to eliminate racial and ethnic bias (conscious or subconscious) in hiring procedures.

Posted by: windy | September 24, 2009 5:24 AM

I am not selling anything nor am I working my way through college, so let's get down to cases. You are a liberal, and I'm going to eat you for supper. Now don't try to get away! I am more muscular, more cunning, faster and larger than you are...and I'm a genius. Why, you could hardly pass the entrance examinations to kindergarten. So, I'll give you the customary 2 minutes to say your prayers.

Posted by: Ray Moscow | September 24, 2009 6:08 AM

I finally watched the vid from a Youtube-friendly system. It's great.

I don't see why this excellent and positive video aroused a firestorm about the supposed evils of rap and black culture.

Posted by: Walton | September 24, 2009 7:47 AM

strange gods, there is a difference between treating Hyperon with basic civility and showing any respect to his views. I have already said that I think his views are profoundly wrong, and have the effect (whether intentional or not) of promoting institutional racism. Are you trying to claim that, by failing to launch a tirade of profanity at him, I'm somehow lending support to his opinion?

Posted by: Hyperon | September 24, 2009 7:59 AM

I never said institutional racism doesn't exist, I said I'm unconvinced that it's significant enough to dominate the force of affirmative action. In the absence of statistics, all I can do is trust my personal experience. The supposed evidence I saw earlier on in the thread was of extremely low quality, and there were always plausible explanations other than racism. If you think I'm a racist for being skeptical of allegations that institutional racism continues to be a serious influence as compared with affirmative action, then you ought to visit a dictionary and reacquaint yourself with the definition of racism.

It's amusing that I'm being accused of ignorance despite that one poster (Carlie), apparently with the full weight of the community behind her, has essentially admitted to getting all her evidence from frivolous two-minute Google searches, in which she trusts to the first academic study she comes across which agrees with her preconceptions. Surely if I'm so obviously wrong, and if there's such a wealth of data against me, surely such ad hoc research ought to be unnecessary? Why doesn't she already know some of the evidence, without having to opportunistically hunt for links, if I'm really committing such an elementary blunder? If someone were to challenge a well-established theory like evolution, or special relativity, or atomic theory, or the germ theory of disease, or even the dynamo theory of the Earth, I will at least be able offer coherent reasons for why these things are well-supported, without having to parrot back the first thing I get from Google. I won't have to resort to trying to bully people into embracing manifestly flawed arguments (e.g. the Everington and Esmail experiment isn't by any means proof of racism, despite attempts by various posters to gain agreement by coercion).

Here is the key difference between me and the rest of you in this thread. People say institutional racism exists, and I ask why. I want to look at the evidence. Then when I see the putative evidence, I try to find out if there other plausible theories that account for it. I don't instantly accept as a fundamental axiom the notion that institutional racism is an extremely powerful force. I don't allow myself to be intimidated by fashionable arguments from authority

I have no interest in getting entangled again in the nigh inescapable thicket that is the thread so far. The formula is this: I make a slightly "edgy" (albeit perfectly defensible) claim, such as that most people called Mohammed that I meet tend to be Muslim fundamentalists. Well yes: Mohammed is after all an Arabic name, and I've lived in parts of England where there tend to be a lot of Muslims (I consider most Muslims fundamentalists, since I think even most so-called "moderate" Muslims are more fundamentalist than hardcore evangelicals -- but that's another story, which you can find empirical support for in almost every opinion poll done on British Muslims). Then the wolf pack come in with their shrill howling, twisting my words, and capitalizing to the full on any of my slightly vague statements. (It's easy to be unclear when you're typing fast and are responding to about a dozen frothing wolves.)

No point in continuing this unless you restrict yourselves to (a) institutional racism, and (b) the actual evidence.

Posted by: Hyperon | September 24, 2009 8:05 AM

You could not even manage to call him a racist, you had to say "an apologist for racism". Your condemnation is faint indeed.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | September 24, 2009 8:07 AM

Considered the possibility that I'm not a racist and apologist for racism? Considered the possibility that you're a disgustingly insincere slimesack who calls people racists over any trifling "gaffe?

I have read what you have said here.

You are a racist.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | September 24, 2009 8:11 AM

Yay, the cracker is back to shower us with his superior intelligence and lack of experience or knowledge!

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | September 24, 2009 8:16 AM

I never said institutional racism doesn't exist, I said I'm unconvinced that it's significant enough to dominate the force of affirmative action

Evidence, please. You've made the extraordinary claim that the institutional practices of the past 40 years, as limited as they are, have overwhelmed the institutional practices of the previous 350.

Back. It. The. Fuck. Up.

Posted by: Hyperon | September 24, 2009 8:18 AM

He just made up excuses to explain it away. Apparently rejecting someone for employment solely on the basis of their name is fine. It is not racism to assume someone with a foreign name cannot speak English and will be totally unable to communicate with, or in anyway relate to, people in the UK.

I should have been more clear though in spelling out that I don't think employers should be allowed to do that.

Posted by: Hyperon | September 24, 2009 8:22 AM

you did, then you would be willing to talk about the disparity in drug convictions. I point out that you keep running from this because you know you have nothing to say.

I don't have the time to reread the thread while responding to people's posts. Please reiterate the evidence regarding disparities in drug convictions, or it will have to wait till later.

Posted by: strange gods before me | September 24, 2009 8:23 AM

I'm less then impressed with some people's arguing style here of late, case in point and victim of such being Hyperon,who might be wrong a lot of times, but the way he/she has been treated here at times is fucked up, pardon my french.I'm less then impressed with some people's arguing style here of late, case in point and victim of such being Hyperon,who might be wrong a lot of times, but the way he/she has been treated here at times is fucked up, pardon my french.

Rorschach, you're a hypocrite and your unsubstantiated assertions are worthless.

Posted by: Anri | September 24, 2009 8:25 AM

Hyperion sez (in part):

It's amusing that I'm being accused of ignorance despite that one poster (Carlie), apparently with the full weight of the community behind her, has essentially admitted to getting all her evidence from frivolous two-minute Google searches, in which she trusts to the first academic study she comes across which agrees with her preconceptions. Surely if I'm so obviously wrong, and if there's such a wealth of data against me, surely such ad hoc research ought to be unnecessary? Why doesn't she already know some of the evidence, without having to opportunistically hunt for links, if I'm really committing such an elementary blunder?

That's the interesting thing about this kind of format - when Hyperion makes a claim, the rest of us can go take a look to see if it's correct.
Carlie, clearly, was saying that it is so easy to find data on this subject that a 2 minute Google search came up with a number of links.
I'm pretty sure the rest of us got that.
Now, either you did too, and are merely being evasive, or you didn't, in which case you are being... um, clearly smarter than all the rest of us (??).

Also, Desert Son, at #346 posted a decent number of sources.
Should we assume you have read these, demolished them with your superior wit, and just not bothered to tell us?
Or shhould we just jump straight to assuming the 'not bothered to' part?

I must admit, though, your own evidence has been quite convincing. The scientific papers you cited in post #...
...heck, can't seem to find it.
Oh, well, I'm sure you're gathering lots of studies to show us.

Right?

Right...?

Posted by: Bobber | September 24, 2009 8:28 AM

In the absence of statistics, all I can do is trust my personal experience.

Carlie, Strange Gods, and Desert Son have each given you sources of information that would add to your limited knowledge base (experience being, by definition, limited). That you don't accept them as legitimate is your failing, not theirs; you are being deliberately bull-headed and stubborn, refusing to acknowledge evidence that contradicts your pre-determined bias. The reason is clear: you proclaim that you are smarter than just about anyone here, and I would make a wager that you believe the same in the mundane world. You therefore think you are smarter than social scientists who conduct experiments to demonstrate the continued existence of institutional/cultural racism. You deny their validity because

...if I'm so obviously wrong, and if there's such a wealth of data against me, surely such ad hoc research ought to be unnecessary? Why doesn't she already know some of the evidence, without having to opportunistically hunt for links, if I'm really committing such an elementary blunder?

Carlie knows the evidence; Strange Gods knows the evidence; Desert Son knows the evidence; they were informing you about it, in what is the accepted scholarly fashion - point to the sources of your knowledge. Many have tried to tell you where you are in error, and backed up their assertions with evidence; that isn't "parroting" anyone, that's backing up an argument. Thus far the only source of your knowledge you have been willing to share is "my experience", which, as I have said above, is extremely limited. You are not the end-all and be-all of existence. Other people have different experiences than you have. That you brush them aside as if they mean nothing doesn't mean you are "smart", it means you are willfully ignorant.

Here is the key difference between me and the rest of you in this thread. People say institutional racism exists, and I ask why.

No, you haven't asked why. You "said I'm unconvinced that it's significant enough to dominate the force of affirmative action". You apparently think that a few decades of affirmative action, which I and others believe to be only the barest half-step in the right direction, treating symptoms instead of causes, has somehow managed to erase the lingering effects of nearly 400 years (in the U.S.) of state enforced and culturally entrenched racism. You have been shown the evidence. Shall I arrange interviews for you with my African-American friends and co-workers so that they can tell you all about their own experiences? Would that be more valid to you than a sociological experiment? Or would you just as easily dismiss their experience because you are "smarter" than they are?

I make a slightly "edgy" (albeit perfectly defensible) claim

You are not "edgy", you are not a "rebel" against a liberal establishment, you are not, as Strange Gods so presciently noted long ago, Galileo. You are not bucking the establishment; you are the establishment, and your continued ignorance is an affront to people who have dealt with the racism you so casually brush aside as your oppressors (the irony is oh so rich).

Posted by: John Morales | September 24, 2009 8:28 AM

Hyperon:

The formula is this: I make a slightly "edgy" (albeit perfectly defensible) claim, such as that most people called Mohammed that I meet tend to be Muslim fundamentalists. Well yes: Mohammed is after all an Arabic name, and I've lived in parts of England where there tend to be a lot of Muslims (I consider most Muslims fundamentalists, since I think even most so-called "moderate" Muslims are more fundamentalist than hardcore evangelicals -- but that's another story, which you can find empirical support for in almost every opinion poll done on British Muslims). Then the wolf pack come in with their shrill howling, twisting my words, and capitalizing to the full on any of my slightly vague statements.

NB: I'm not twisting your words, other than by adding emphasis. I'm quoting.

By using the extreme form for the norm, you're left with nothing to use for the actual extreme, e.g. Wahhabism.

Unless you think those are (ahem) hyper-fundamentalists.

Hyperion, if you choose to employ hyperbole here, expect to be called on it.

Posted by: Bobber | September 24, 2009 8:31 AM

Apologies for the double post. The former is unedited; the latter is. (Long-winded mistakes are the worst kind.)

Posted by: Rorschach | September 24, 2009 8:37 AM

Hello sgbm,

how are you tonight? In fine shit-stirring and name-calling form? Im tired, and I dont have the nerve to do this now,Im way too tempted to tell you off,but lets just not....So I will read,and not post.Good night.

Posted by: strange gods before me | September 24, 2009 8:39 AM

Rorschach, I'm serious, your opinion is worthless. You did exactly what you accuse me of, and you refused to answer how it could have been done any differently. You are a hypocrite.

Posted by: Hyperon | September 24, 2009 8:45 AM

Why are you so stupid, Hyperon? We already went over this.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | September 24, 2009 8:52 AM

For your evidence to be clinching, you'd need to show that the probability of being incarcerated for a particular drug crime is greater for African-Americans than for whites.

Wow, you really do know nothing about American society.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | September 24, 2009 9:00 AM

Hyperon,

African Americans get harsher punishments than their white counterparts for the same crime. They also make less doing the same job. (Source)

Posted by: Hyperon | September 24, 2009 9:04 AM

Nothing to do with generational oppression, not at all. Oh yeah, indigenous Australians have around 10 years lower life expectancy than other Australians. Must be their propensity for violence and primitiveness, eh?

The disparity in life expectancy could easily be due to bad economic conditions, which are the fallout of past racism (not necessarily propped up by continued racism).

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | September 24, 2009 9:07 AM

Feynmaniac, glad you found that crim cite. I was looking and came up with a review of federal sentencing for drug crimes during the 1990s that showed Latinos received the harshest penalties, blacks next, and whites the least harsh.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/2657543

I had to admit that there is probably not a single criminologist in the United States who does not recognize that there are racial disparities in sentencing (for pretty much every crime). When hyperon keeps tossing out more uninformed racist drivel and refusing to back up a single thing he says with any evidence, or even any rational thought that takes into consideration how social institutions actually, you know, operate or even how history is captured and retained within institutionalized relationships and patterns....oy.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | September 24, 2009 9:09 AM

The disparity in life expectancy could easily be due to bad economic conditions, which are the fallout of past racism (not necessarily propped up by continued racism).

Do you even know what institutional racism is?

Posted by: Stephen Wells | September 24, 2009 9:20 AM

Shorter Hyperon: although this may look like a dogturd, smell like a dogturd, and have just dropped from the nether orifice of a Great Dane, it is _equally plausible_ that this is in fact a chocolate eclair cunningly disguised and delivered by the famous molecular gastronomist Heston Blumenthal... why won't any of you try some?

In future, why not examine the evidence _before_ forming your opinions? It might help!

Posted by: strange gods before me | September 24, 2009 9:29 AM

Why is it that by trying to be fair-minded and give everyone the benefit of the doubt, I get attacked from both sides? First Hyperon calls me a "cowardly shit", and now you describe my post as "profoundly dishonest".

I thought I made it clear what I was calling profoundly dishonest: your implication that I was asking for profanity from you (I wouldn't mind some, but I didn't ask for any).

When you substituted this strawman for my real criticism, regarding your withdrawal of the charge of making an apologia for racism, you completely dodged the issue.

As I've said, I disagree strongly with what Hyperon is saying. I think his comments reveal a distorted and unrealistic view of social conditions, and I think he is profoundly wrong to deny the reality of institutional racism. Is that not good enough for you?

Saying "maybe I misunderstood your comments [when you did not], and perhaps I shouldn't have been so quick to label you an apologist for racism. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and I apologise if I misinterpreted what you were saying" is not good enough, no.

Giving someone a pass for making racist apologetics is irresponsible. You were right the first time, and you were wrong to call retreat. If you thought he was working from a misunderstanding, it's fine to point that out, but it's not okay to make that an excuse worthy of your apology.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | September 24, 2009 9:30 AM

and I believe my response was that it's incomplete.

Posted by: strange gods before me | September 24, 2009 9:37 AM

The reason I offered nothing but "what ifs" is simply because I wasn't asserting a positive. In all scientific endeavour, it is the natural course of actual when presented with incomplete evidence. You ask "Well how do you know it's not X, Y and Z?"

You were given the complete evidence a day ago at #151. You ignored it and insisted on having it spoonfed to you. Some alternative hypotheses are not reasonable. It was racist to assume that "maybe they commit drug crimes at a rate that's six times higher. Maybe there are more African-American drug dealers. Maybe hard drugs are more popular in African-American communities" were reasonable responses, and it was crankish to offer them instead of just reading the literature.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | September 24, 2009 9:38 AM

You were given the complete evidence a day ago at #151. You ignored it and insisted on having it spoonfed to you. Some alternative hypotheses are not reasonable. It was racist to assume that "maybe they commit drug crimes at a rate that's six times higher. Maybe there are more African-American drug dealers. Maybe hard drugs are more popular in African-American communities" were reasonable responses, and it was crankish to offer them instead of just reading the literature.

See my comment at 103

Posted by: Walton | September 24, 2009 9:43 AM

strange gods,

Saying "maybe I misunderstood your comments [when you did not], and perhaps I shouldn't have been so quick to label you an apologist for racism. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and I apologise if I misinterpreted what you were saying" is not good enough, no.

Giving someone a pass for making racist apologetics is irresponsible. You were right the first time, and you were wrong to call retreat. If you thought he was working from a misunderstanding, it's fine to point that out, but it's not okay to make that an excuse worthy of your apology.

Well, I thought at the time that I had misunderstood what Hyperon was saying. Maybe my original interpretation was the correct one, as you suggest.

Incidentally, I note that he has now retracted some of his earlier remarks and admitted that institutional racism does exist. This, if sincere, is an important step.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | September 24, 2009 9:44 AM

If you truly had a scientific mentality, you would not be "offended" by a mere hypothesis.

You're kidding with that, right?

I most certainly will be offended when the hypothesis not only contradicts an overwhelming majority of the data, but is morally offensive in its assertion to begin with.

What the hell is wrong with you? I really think you should have stopped posting after your #426... to come back now and justify the reason for taking a wrong position just continues to show you to be a stubborn egotistical ass.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | September 24, 2009 9:48 AM

Walton,

He has said things like:

Whenever I encounter the name "Mohammed", I feel uneasy, because I know that statistically there's a good chance I will be dealing with a Muslim fundamentalist.

He has not retracted that comment. He still is racist but carry on making excuses for him if you must.

Posted by: Stephen Wells | September 24, 2009 9:50 AM

Notice that Hyperon thinks it's more important to _respond right now on the thread_ than to actually examine the evidence that he was pointed to, in the thread. Which brings us back to the point about examining the evidence _first_ before forming and expressing opinions.

Posted by: Bobber | September 24, 2009 9:55 AM

So, Hyperon has now morphed from Ed Begley in "12 Angry Men" to Robert Webber.

Posted by: mister-fire | September 24, 2009 10:01 AM

Anyway, SGBM's case now seems watertight, so I happily admit (if that's phrase to use when faced with such terribly bleak data) I was utterly wrong about institutionalized racism.

So that's all fine and dandy then, and your bigoted snarlings are water under the bridge.

"...All right - we'll call it a draw!"

Posted by: Bobber | September 24, 2009 10:05 AM

You would read David Irving; he's a respectable historian, and it's not antisemitic to say so.

Dammit, you made me gag. My last history professor, a British national* and expert on World War II and Winston Churchill, discussed David Irving and used him as an example of how not to do historical research properly.

*I have very fond memories of taking smoking breaks with Professor Paul, where he would tell me exactly how much he despised Blair's religiosity and his lap-dog status to Bush, but that he realized a Conservative government would be worse. In some ways, college is wasted on the young; it's much more fun to go to school as an adult.

Posted by: skeptifem | September 24, 2009 10:15 AM

Hyperon; heres some info about blacks being more likely to do "hard" drugs...

The ACLU has been working to end the disparity in sentencing for crack cocaine vs powder cocaine. Crack possession earns someone a much harsher sentence than powder cocaine possession, and the use of rock vs powder cocaine has a racial connection:

"Sentences for crack are currently equivalent to the sentences for 100 times the amount of powder cocaine, and the impact falls disproportionately on African Americans. "

it is a penalty for smoking cocaine instead of snorting it.

Posted by: Knockgoats | September 24, 2009 10:24 AM

I think Muslims are a pervasive nuisance in the UK (and if you think that sounds "racist", realize that you would have no problem if I replaced Muslims with "Catholics"). - Hyperon the racist

Wrong again, Hyperon. I loathe the Catholic Church, and Catholicism, just as I loathe the likes of Hizb ut Tahrir, and Islam; I do not see any grounds to regard either Muslims or Catholics as a "pervasive nuisance", and find this kind of language offensive: it is very obviously preparatory to measures for getting rid of the "pervasive nuisance".

the fact that any Muslim living in Europe who renounces Islam is liable to abandoned by his family - Hyperon the racist

[citation needed]

Oh, I forgot, Hyperon doesn't "do" evidence.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | September 24, 2009 10:27 AM

Presumably Hyperon thinks someone called Seamus O'Malley is likely to be a Catholic, and thus anti-abortion and birth control and pro keeping woman in their place.

I guess you should not think of giving a job dispensing drugs, including birth control pills, to such a person. Bound to be unsuitable.

Posted by: Stephen Wells | September 24, 2009 10:36 AM

Damn, Hyperon, nobody ever _told_ you that line about holes, digging, when to stop...

I live in England. I don't think Muslims are a pervasive nuisance. I think _Islam_ is pretty silly, and I like my state as secular as I can get it, but actual _Muslims_ are mostly, you know, just people. And stop trying to sneak in those "In my head, everyone agrees with me" lines.

The opposition you're meeting is not due to ignorance or lack of mathematical reasoning. It's because you think it's reasonable to judge people, not on what you _know_ about them, but on what you _think_ is true about them _based on stereotypes_. Then you claim not to be a racist. Keep telling yourself that, hey?

Posted by: wowbaggerau | September 24, 2009 10:43 AM

For this reason an Arabic name actually contains quite a lot of information about the likelihood of someone's being a Muslim.

You know, what that actually is likely to indicate is the probability of that person's parents being Muslim.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | September 24, 2009 10:48 AM

I'm also highly amused that you think that you are able to judge the quality of research in the social sciences, given that I doubt you've had any experience in social science beyond a 101-level general education class taught by an overworked adjunct.

Hyperon seems to be British. In which case unless he did a social studies degree at Uni he probable has never really studied sociology at all, except as part of a "general education" course at school.

Posted by: strange gods before me | September 24, 2009 10:51 AM

You know, what that actually is likely to indicate is the probability of that person's parents being Muslim.

Be serious, Wowbagger. There's no way that an atheist and an agnostic would name their son Hussein.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | September 24, 2009 10:53 AM

I have intellectual skills and experience of my own which I don't go around boasting about.

Liar

in fact I'm smarter than everyone or mostly everyone here,

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | September 24, 2009 10:55 AM

I doubt most people arguing against me have much training in the social sciences either.

PhD in sociology.

Posted by: Stephen Wells | September 24, 2009 10:58 AM

Hyperon, current evidence suggest that your degree may have been in Goalpost Shifting. Anyone can discuss, but you should be aware of the limits of your own expertise, and not make strong claims without knowing your evidential basis. And you did, remember, accuse Carlie of "relying on a two-minute Google search", apparently as an excuse to not pay any attention to the evidence.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | September 24, 2009 10:59 AM

Not my fault if you're too intellectually limited to feel you have the right to discuss anything beyond the subject you have a degree in.

Oh, I feel free to discuss topics outside of my expertise gained in formal learning.

However I am not arrogant enough to assume I know more about a subject than those who have studied for years to get their Phd, whereas that does not seem to stop you.

Posted by: strange gods before me | September 24, 2009 11:01 AM

Blah blah blah. The fact is I changed my mind and admitted I was wrong the very moment I read a post which contained evidence I thought compelling.

A serious person would have studied the research before unleashing a whirlwind of crankery and racism.

Posted by: mister-fire | September 24, 2009 11:05 AM

It's unfortunate that intolerance of mathematical ignorance isn't nearly so widespread.

Eh? Oh, a weak, hyperbolic rhetorical device. To lead into:

Anyone who believes a name by necessity contains no information about religious stance, and sometimes other characteristics, would do well to acquaint himself with some basic probability theory and statistics.

And:

For this reason I can forgive employers who look at an application form with a Muslim name, and have the feeling: "Oh no, not another Muslim".

No. That's not forgivable. It is called prejudice. It might be 'natural' to many people, given the climate in which they were raised. But it is an error - a pernicious and bigoted error - to conflate the horror that is religion with an indivdual that you haven't even met yet! You are saying, in effect, that is alright to judge people, in advance, according to a set of pre-formed assumptions. That. is. fucking. wrong.

It says all we need to know about you, though. You are positively radiating bigotry, in all directions.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | September 24, 2009 11:08 AM

...and now the "I can ignore the experts because some non-experts agree with them", for which I have no pithy classical tag. Suggestions?

Not classical (it is a long long time since I did any Latin!) but how about "argument by consensus of morons" ?

Posted by: Feynmaniac | September 24, 2009 11:13 AM

I was going to fake being a sociology expert, but apparently the deception wouldn't have lasted long:

http://www.xkcd.com/451/

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | September 24, 2009 11:20 AM

Shorter hyperon:

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!!!!!!!!

How dare you?! Some of my best friends are.....

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | September 24, 2009 11:21 AM

Uh oh someone is getting riled up

For just a bit of background, my two best friends are Indian and Chinese,

Oh I'm no racist, I have plenty of black friends.

Any other classic dodge.

You run the risk of ending up like the boy who cried wolf. Carry on like this and eventually people will grow tired and your charges of racism will carry utterly no weight, even when it matters.

Except when those charges are accurate. As in your case.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | September 24, 2009 11:26 AM

If I am a racist, what word are you going to use to signify real racism? You know, actually referring to people as niggers. Looking down on people due to the colour of their skin. Maintaining that some races are genetically less gifted.

Judging people based solely on the fact they have an Arabic name is real racism. Clearly that is an idea you have yet to grasp.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | September 24, 2009 11:28 AM

If I am a racist, what word are you going to use to signify real racism? You know, actually referring to people as niggers.

racists

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | September 24, 2009 11:29 AM

Hyperon, if I looked at the behavior of a cracker who tried to feel me out as a closet racist, and found I wasn't, his apologetic defence is a perfect one to one correspondence (mathematical enough for you) to your responses. As I said previously, if you were as smart as you think you are, you would just go away for a few days. You just keep digging yourself deeper and deeper due to both your arrogance and blinding ignorance.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | September 24, 2009 11:32 AM

For just a bit of background, my two best friends are Indian and Chinese

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | September 24, 2009 11:36 AM

Feynmaniac has officially ruined me for the day

Posted by: strange gods before me | September 24, 2009 11:38 AM

You know nothing about me at all. For just a bit of background, my two best friends are Indian and Chinese, I've never uttered the word "nigger" in my life except when quoting it, and I enthusiastically promote Germs, Guns and Steel. If I am a racist, what word are you going to use to signify real racism? You know, actually referring to people as niggers. Looking down on people due to the colour of their skin. Maintaining that some races are genetically less gifted.

Good question, and that's why we identify different kinds of racism. For example, what you're talking about here is old-fashioned racism. Again from Dr. Catherine A. Cottrell:

Old-fashioned Racism

* Based on belief in the biological inferiority of Black people

* Involves stereotypes of low intelligence, laziness, etc.

* Open hatred and feelings of superiority are shown by racist.

Items from old-fashioned racism scale:

* “It was wrong for the United States Supreme Court to outlaw segregation in its 1954 decision.”

* “If a Black family with about the same income and education as I have moved next door, I would mind it a great deal.”

* “Black people are generally not as smart as Whites.”

How Has Racism Changed?

Racism continues to exist, but in a more subtle form than that seen in the past.

Why do we see nonracist survey responses but racist behaviors?

* Change in racial attitudes and acceptance of prejudice since WWII.

* Prior to the war, Jim Crow racism existed.

* After the 1954 Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, racism changed from being normal to being bad.

BUT people continue to learn prejudiced beliefs through socialization.

Negative stereotypes and feelings still exist in American culture in the form of implicit prejudices.

Three propositions shared by theories of contemporary racism:

* America’s social norms now support the principle of equality for all.

* Not everyone has accepted this norm to the same degree.

* Even those people who have not yet fully accepted the norm are motivated to act in nonprejudiced ways.

Your own brand of racism was detailed earlier, at #279.

It certainly is important to make the distinction, precisely so that racists like you are not let off the hook simply because their racism takes a more modern and less commonly understood form.

Yours is a common mistake that stupid people make. They unconsciously absorb the general societal consensus that racism is bad. But then they go completely off the rails in their logic: "I don't feel like a bad person, therefore I must not be a racist."

And all kinds of excuses are constructed to prop up this broken logic:

Nowadays, only biological white supremacy, racial slurs (especially the “N’ word”), and explicit racial violence will get a white person labeled a racist. Therefore, many whites respond to charges of racism by saying things like, “I’m not a racist… Some of my best friends are black… I’ve never enslaved any black people or terrorized them with dogs and firehoses… I’ve never burned a cross on a black family’s lawn or called anyone ‘Nigger.’” You see? Nazis and Klansmen are the only racist whites from this perspective. This isn’t the only view, but it’s been the default for decades. [...] They focus on individual attitudes—racially hostile attitudes—so as to limit the scope of racism to the hearts and minds of benighted souls. Not systematic discrimination in housing, the criminal justice system, education, employment. Not racism with any kind of heft or history to it, but just attitudes.

Posted by: Desert Son | September 24, 2009 11:42 AM

Hyperon posted:

I enthusiastically promote Germs, Guns and Steel

Enthusiastically enough to get the title wrong? How many readers have you sent to James Thin in search of Germs, Guns and Steel, only for them to discover Diamond's book is actually titled Guns, Germs and Steel?

Hyperon posted:

Obviously based on name alone we don't know if someone called Abdul-Salaam Mourad is or isn't a Muslim. What is certain is that in the absence of other information, such a person is much more likely to be a Muslim than someone called Jack Taylor.

What is certain is that, in the absence of other information, it is foolish and morally delinquent to presume affiliation, and then go on to presume deficiency of character based on presumed affiliation, by default.

Will the real Cecil Rhodes and/or Francis Galton please stand up?

No kings,

Robert

Posted by: mister-fire | September 24, 2009 12:05 PM

only for them to discover Diamond's book is actually titled Guns, Germs and Steel?

Oh dear, Desert Son: now you are nitpicker, so all your erudite previous and future arguments can be dismissed out of hand...

Posted by: Brownian, OM | September 24, 2009 12:09 PM

What a miserable world it is where even the supposed "freethinkers" among us turn out to be unmerciful, misrepresentative fascists.

You only think I'm a fascist because my first name is the Italian-sounding Anthony.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | September 24, 2009 12:15 PM

Take your feelings of being in the minority here and having people think the worst about you and you will only begin to appreciate what visible minorities have to deal with everyday.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | September 24, 2009 12:16 PM

Yawn, the bigot might retire. About time. And finally showing some of that high intelligence. *snicker*

Posted by: Chiroptera | September 24, 2009 12:20 PM

Hyperon, #502: You try keeping your wits about you while being called a racist by about two dozen screaming posters. It's an incredibly disorienting experience.

You became disoriented despite having full control over how often you hit the "refresh" button and how quickly you read through the comments? That says quite a bit about your obsessive-compulsive behavior.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | September 24, 2009 12:30 PM

What a miserable world it is where even the supposed "freethinkers" among us turn out to be unmerciful, misrepresentative fascists.

Oh, get over yourself, Hyperon... you proclaimed yourself smarter than everyone on this site and are now feeling the backlash of being shown to be demonstrably ignorant regarding a particular subject. It should be humbling... but to the self-important it's usually just irritating.

Do you really not realize that it was not simply the ignorance of your arguments and assertions that caused the backlash you saw here, but the complete hubris with which you comported yourself?

I'm quite sorry, but if you combine an ignorant, offensive argument with an over-inflated sense of perspicacity and an over-sized ego, chances are your not going to be well received.

Please don't pretend now to be the poor innocent persecuted. You acted like an asshole and were thusly treated like one.

Posted by: Hyperon | September 24, 2009 12:33 PM

Oh, get over yourself, Hyperon... you proclaimed yourself smarter than everyone on this site and are now feeling the backlash of being shown to be demonstrably ignorant regarding a particular subject

Posted by: Brownian, OM | September 24, 2009 12:42 PM

If you weren't insecure dickheads you would let this isolated comment go instead of obsessing over it.

It wasn't just that, fuckwad, it was your continued refusal to even examine the data and provide any of your own.

For someone who thinks he understands patterns, you sure are oblivious to your own pattern of stupidity, moron.

Now go to bed, you dumb-as-shit glob of sputum.

Posted by: Brownian, OM | September 24, 2009 12:44 PM

I didn't say that, I was referring to the people in this thread, most of whom have called me stupid.

That was empiricism in action.

Who told you you weren't stupid despite all evidence to the contrary, anyways? Do you have overly coddling parents? You might want to examine what they say about you with your razor-sharp skepticism.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | September 24, 2009 12:47 PM

I didn't say that, I was referring to the people in this thread, most of whom have called me stupid. It was simple tit for tat. If you weren't insecure dickheads you would let this isolated comment go instead of obsessing over it.

Ahem...

(1) I have a college degree myself, (2) in fact I'm smarter than everyone or mostly everyone here, and (3) I don't think highly of the social sciences

You DID say that... there was no qualifier, no comparative statement... you tossed out one non-sequitor and two insults in one sentence. And still, you continue to be a complete shitstick by playing revisionist history and now claiming that's not what you did. Stop blaming us for your inability to express yourself and for coming off like an asshole in the process. Who's the insecure one, exactly?

Posted by: strange gods before me | September 24, 2009 12:53 PM

The actual words of a thug:

You're a racist scumbag. Go fuck yourself.

He should at least be given a warning for this. Any ethnic slur would bring about immediate banning.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | September 24, 2009 12:55 PM

Hyperon @ #520

You're just a thug, aren't you?

Cause you'd never stoop to slinging insults of that kind... right? Right?

Hyperon @ #105

...you immortal puke-stain, you cum-streak of the ages, you Knobgoblin Champion, you Greater Snot Elemental.

Oops!

Hyperon, your hypocrisy is showing... might wanna zip that up...

Posted by: Matt Penfold | September 24, 2009 1:01 PM

I have only now stumbled over this thread

I'd wondered where you were.

Still, better late that never. Pull on your Doc Martins and help administer a good kicking.

Posted by: AJ Milne | September 24, 2009 1:02 PM

You're just a thug, aren't you?

Well, y'know... Southern Slav... Has an Italian name...

Prolly in the Mafia and Naša Stvarm, amirite?

(Runs far, far away...)

(/Yes, I needed a reason to stop refreshing this accursed thread and get some work done... Figure this will have to do...)

Posted by: strange gods before me | September 24, 2009 1:05 PM

I'm a racist despite being more colour-blind than any of you,

Let's talk about this.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | September 24, 2009 1:06 PM

I'm a racist despite being more colour-blind than any of you...

I think I have found your problem. You think racism is about skin colour.

Posted by: Josh | September 24, 2009 1:12 PM

I'm a racist despite being more colour-blind than any of you...

Hmmmm....do I think that someone who was more "colorblind" than anyone else watching this thread is likely to have written this:

Whenever I encounter the name "Mohammed", I feel uneasy, because I know that statistically there's a good chance I will be dealing with a Muslim fundamentalist.

Yeah...yeah...the probability does seem high. Okay, I'm convinced. Anyone else?

Posted by: Brownian, OM | September 24, 2009 1:16 PM

Well, y'know... Southern Slav... Has an Italian name...

Prolly in the Mafia and Naša Stvarm, amirite?

Well, I was involved in a small Šljìvovica-smuggling ring, until we found out it was legal...

Posted by: Brownian, OM | September 24, 2009 1:28 PM

Hmmmm....do I think that someone who was more "colorblind" than anyone else watching this thread is likely to have written this:

Whenever I encounter the name "Mohammed", I feel uneasy, because I know that statistically there's a good chance I will be dealing with a Muslim fundamentalist.

To be fair Josh, he did say he was colour-blind, not name-blind.

So he's not the kind of racist who judges based on skill colour, but he shits bricks when he encounters a Jameel or a Tyrone.

So, technically not a racist, though still a bigot. See, blacks, Arabs, and Indians are just fine when named Mike. FSM help us if they listen to Snoop or eat chapatis.

As to 'thug', it's linguistic legerdemain to suggest that it's only thuggery if it's violent, but everyone knows you're only a racist if you use the words 'kike' and 'nigger' while burning crosses.

Posted by: Janine, Vile Bitch, OM | September 24, 2009 1:36 PM

I'm a racist despite being more colour-blind than any of you, yet a thug is only someone who inflicts physical violence? Come back when you have a clue.

This coming from a person who said this.

I think the problem many of us have with rap is the disturbing violence which generally seems present in the art. I have no problem with violence in entertainment (in fact, I even like it), but what's so sinister about rap is that they are apparently actually serious in promoting violence. They seriously believe their barbaric, "gangsta" ways are something to publicly boast about. I don't think this boasting, this reveling in barbarism, is something to be encouraged. Rap is almost certainly, in my opinion, an overall force for evil in the world.

Yeah, sure: ghetto kids behaving violently bears little to no resemblance to reality.

I don't have to be an "expert" to know that the culture in African-American ghettos is singularly primitive and violent.

Color blind yet oh so quick to condemn an economic subgroup of a racial group as singularly primitive and violent. Never mind the people who come from that background who strive against the actual forces in their lifes and the attitudes of people like Hyperion and even people like me. (I have volunteered for groups that catered to low income blacks.)

Color blind yet quick to condemn a musical style that comes from the black community. To equate gangsta rap with all of hip hop is the same as saying that hair metal is all of rock because, for a while, it was the most popular form of the genre. Funny thing, hip hop is far beyond being music from the ghetto. It is world wide and has taken many forms, much like rock moved from being a black form of music and mutated into many different things on a world wide setting.

Wait! Could you be color blind the same way that many social conservatives say they are color blind.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | September 24, 2009 1:40 PM

I'm a racist despite being more colour-blind than any of you

You really are trying to channel Stephen Colbert but not in a good way.

I'm not racist but let me tell you about all those damn dark skinned folk.

Posted by: Anri | September 24, 2009 1:47 PM

Hyperion sez:

I knew that. Got a little confused. You try keeping your wits about you while being called a racist by about two dozen screaming posters. It's an incredibly disorienting experience. Even has a nihilistic feel to it.

Well, it might bea good idea to turn down the volume on your...
um...
Ok, I'm not certain what you have to turn the volume down on to keep from being disorianted by reading text. But I'll get back to you as soon as I figure that out.

What a miserable world it is where even the supposed "freethinkers" among us turn out to be unmerciful, misrepresentative fascists.

Hi, Hyperion.
I'm a freethinker.
Please note where I have misrepresented you, or supported fascist ideals.

Thanks in advance.

Posted by: Epikt | September 24, 2009 1:52 PM

Hyperon:

Anyone who believes a name by necessity contains no information about religious stance, and sometimes other characteristics, would do well to acquaint himself with some basic probability theory and statistics.

I have some German ancestry, and an anglicized German last name. Presumable in your world it would be reasonable to expect that every September I'd feel an irresistible urge to invade Poland.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | September 24, 2009 1:56 PM

Jewish Ghetto culture is all about textiles and penny pinching.

Posted by: Hyperon | September 24, 2009 1:58 PM

So he's not the kind of racist who judges based on skill colour, but he shits bricks when he encounters a Jameel or a Tyrone.

I have some German ancestry, and an anglicized German last name. Presumable in your world it would be reasonable to expect that every September I'd feel an irresistible urge to invade Poland.

Posted by: strange gods before me | September 24, 2009 2:05 PM

I have some German ancestry, and an anglicized German last name. Presumable in your world it would be reasonable to expect that every September I'd feel an irresistible urge to invade Poland.

"Watch out Europe, we're going on tour!"

Posted by: strange gods before me | September 24, 2009 2:20 PM

Hyperon, please explain what you mean by being "color-blind" and why you think it's a good thing.

Posted by: Hyperon | September 24, 2009 2:32 PM

Hyperion, can you even entertain the idea that you very well could be wrong and are actually providing examples of someone who is racist?

If you want to redefine as a racist someone who tends not to like Muslims (notice: Muslims, not Arabs), or someone who is appalled by the glorification of "gangsta culture", then be my guest. It has nothing to do with racism in the sense that it's normally understood, so don't expect me to be impressed.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | September 24, 2009 2:40 PM

I'm also willing to admit that I am unconsciously biased against Muslims

Actually, no... based on your submissions, you are, unconsciously or not, biased against all people whom you might even assume are muslim. It's a stark, and important, difference...

just as most people here are unconsciously biased aganst Republicans)

Once again you make sweeping and generalized assertions without proof. I would venture a guess that while most here have an aversion to Republican political ideology, I think it's going a fair stretch too far to call us prejudicially biased against any person simply because of an affiliation with that political ideology. For myself, at any rate, I'd want to hear what a person might have to say and what their arguments might be regarding any given subject before applying any value judgment to them.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | September 24, 2009 2:52 PM

If you want to redefine as a racist someone who tends not to like Muslims (notice: Muslims, not Arabs), or someone who is appalled by the glorification of "gangsta culture", then be my guest. It has nothing to do with racism in the sense that it's normally understood, so don't expect me to be impressed.

You just continue to totally miss the point, Hyperon...

See, it's not your dislike of muslims, fear of muslims, or feelings towards the muslim religion that makes you racist, Hyperon... what makes you a racist is your propensity to draw assumptions from mundane details, like a person's name (your point about being wary of anyone named Muhammed) or the specific area in which they live (your point about ghetto culture being singularly violent), and lump them all in, in a disparaging or prejudicial way... it's something you've done in countless examples on this thread, and it makes you easy to spot for being, in fact, a racist...

It's also been pointed out that you are clearly a racist that doesn't believe himself to be a racist, for reason Carlie clearly laid out...

I think it's time you review what you've said here, Hyperon, and took a good long look at yourself, and hopefully take the time and effort to recognize these traits you have displayed, and then do something about them.

If you are as intelligent as you'd like us to think you are, to do otherwise would be a shameful waste of what intelligence you do possess.

Posted by: the_fishiologist | September 24, 2009 2:56 PM

"I'm also willing to admit that I am unconsciously biased against Muslims (just as most people here are unconsciously biased aganst Republicans). However I really don't believe race or skin colour makes any difference at all. I feel in my bones that it doesn't make any difference at all. I'm not in the least biased against any races as far as I can tell, so there's not really any support whatever for calling me a racist. "

no support for calling you a racist? You have suggested that it's ok to screen resumes based on the presence of a culturally different name because that person "probably" won't sell alcohol in a convenience store, or "probably" can't speak English well, or "probably" can't relate to the local culture!

Last year in preparation for the US election, CBC interviewed Americans in various cities to ask who they would vote for and why. One man said that while he doesn't really agree with Republican policies, he would be voting for McCain because "Obama" sounded too close to "Osama" for his comfort (I nearly threw my radio out the window at that point). Based on the arguments you've presented, with a name like "Obama", he is probably not familiar with American culture, is potentially a Muslim fundamentalist, is rooted in a violent and misogynistic culture. And with a middle name like Hussein, he must be related to (and therefore in cahoots with) Saddam!

It is true that some religious, cultural, and political policies may interfere with the ability of any given person to do a certain job, but what is totally reprehensible is to apply religious, cultural, racial or political stereotypes to a person before meeting and assessing them on an individual basis. To suggest that it is ok to make up your mind about a person's suitability for a job based solely on their name, their country of origin or their cultural background is racist. Period.

Posted by: Brownian, OM | September 24, 2009 2:56 PM

(just as most people here are unconsciously biased aganst Republicans)

But, but, my best friend is a Republican.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | September 24, 2009 3:01 PM

To pick up on what BDC has said it might well be true that more Republicans are arseholes than are Democrats.

That does not tell you anything about an individual Republican, or Democrat. When it comes to forming a view of an individual knowing that members of a group are more likely to be arseholes does not provide any information about that individual. Unless there is a 100% correlation between a trait and membership of a group then it is unreasonable to make assumptions about an individual based on what you know of the groups to which they belong.

Posted by: strange gods before me | September 24, 2009 3:02 PM

I'm also willing to admit that I am unconsciously biased against Muslims (just as most people here are unconsciously biased aganst Republicans). However I really don't believe race or skin colour makes any difference at all. I feel in my bones that it doesn't make any difference at all.

That doesn't even make sense. If you are admitting a bias against Muslims then you are consciously biased against Muslims. If you don't consciously believe you are racist, that provides no insight whatsoever into what you subconsciously feel.

I'm not in the least biased against any races as far as I can tell, so there's not really any support whatever for calling me a racist.

Except for the numerous racist things you've said in this thread.

Hyperon, please explain what you mean by being "color-blind" and why you think it's a good thing.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | September 24, 2009 3:04 PM

You're the one who's really fucking stupid, not to mention bigoted, if you think Muslims are a "race".

Don't tell me. You think race is about the colour of a person's skin ?

I had assumed we were being somewhat grown up and taking race to be associated with ethnicity rather than skin colour.

Clearly with Hyperon I was hoping for too much.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | September 24, 2009 3:05 PM

I had assumed we were being somewhat grown up and taking race to be associated with ethnicity rather than skin colour.

I don't really talk about it either way while simultaneously including both. Race is a system of social organization.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | September 24, 2009 3:09 PM

I don't really talk about it either way while simultaneously including both. Race is a system of social organization.

I think that was what I was trying to get at. Probably very badly. I would consider ethnicity to be more about social organisation than simply skin colour.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | September 24, 2009 3:14 PM

I don't really talk about it either way while simultaneously including both. Race is a system of social organization.

I think that was what I was trying to get at. Probably very badly. I would consider ethnicity to be more about social organisation than simply skin colour.

I think the basic distinction I would make, and this gets sort of messy, is that race is a system of social organization that creates categories around phenotypical difference perceived to be significant. Ethnicity is a system of social organization that makes such distinctions on the basis of cultural difference. Of course, there are overlaps, and the two systems to to co-constitute each other. Census forms here in the US really confuse race and ethnicity.

Basically, as social systems, race=body, ethnicity=culture, but the two get all mixed up with each other.

Posted by: strange gods before me | September 24, 2009 3:15 PM

Most of my friends are Republicans because most of the people who live here are republicans. Do I get more points than Brownian?

That's a courageous story, Lynna. I understand that Republican culture is singularly primitive and violent.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | September 24, 2009 3:17 PM

When it comes to forming a view of an individual knowing that members of a group are more likely to be arseholes does not provide any information about that individual. Unless there is a 100% correlation between a trait and membership of a group then it is unreasonable to make assumptions about an individual based on what you know of the groups to which they belong.

I know that a very vocal portion of Muslims are violent scary fundamentalist motherfuckers. Therefore I should assume that anyone who is a Muslim is also a violent scary fundamentalist motherfucker at first glance.

Posted by: Bobber | September 24, 2009 3:20 PM

just as most people here are unconsciously biased aganst Republicans

My antipathy toward Republicans is very conscious.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | September 24, 2009 3:21 PM

I'm not a racist. I'm someone who's recently been planning to learn Mandarin so I can one day move to China. As soon as I get on my feet financially, I intend to follow Peter Singer's ethics and donate 25% of my income to charity -- and it will go to relieve suffering in Africa, since I think it will do the most good there. Calling me a racist is just ridiculous slander.
I might be unfairly biased against Muslims, because my strong views on Islam might sometimes cloud my judgment and lead me to over-generalize. Maybe also I'm somewhat uncharitable about affirmative action (being someone who tries to be completely colour-blind, I find affirmative action a bit patronizing and hard to justify). That's about as far as I go toward "bigotry".

...

I don't have to be an "expert" to know that the culture in African-American ghettos is singularly primitive and violent.

Posted by: mister-fire | September 24, 2009 3:23 PM

Hyperon, you still have many, many claims to defend, not least one of your very first:

Rap is almost certainly, in my opinion, an overall force for evil in the world.

...a grandiose and inaccurate statement that you reinforced with...

That's just a lame excuse to pin on "the white man" the blame for the misogynistic, savage hip hop culture that was born in African-American ghettos.

(i) "the white man" has nothing to do with the current popularity of violent hip-hop;

(ii) hip-hop inherently promotes violence.

I'll settle for skeptifem's initial rebuttal (and those of many other posters) concerning the first point. Regarding the second, when you airily dismissed non-violence-promoting examples from Tupac, Public Enemy, Jay-Z, Grandmaster Flash, etc. etc, as

a bunch of obscure Care Bear rap that nobody listens to

you clearly revealed your ignorance as to who is big in hip-hop, and how hip-hop started (a point that skeptifem also addressed).

Care to retract those statments too? Oh, and don't run to the excuse that we are misrepresenting you. Many of your statements have been miserably worded for the level of controversy that surrounds them, and you know it.

Posted by: Hyperon | September 24, 2009 3:32 PM

Hyperon lives in the UK, where Muslim is used as code for brown people living in shit-hole foreign countries.

Posted by: Janine, Vile Bitch, OM | September 24, 2009 3:39 PM

Here is a Muslim doing a song based on a Sufi saying. Can you tell from his name?

Posted by: Lynna, OM | September 24, 2009 4:04 PM

That's a courageous story, Lynna. I understand that Republican culture is singularly primitive and violent.

The interview for the permit was interesting. I couldn't curb my writerly instincts and started interviewing the officer that fingerprinted me. Of all the local police forces, the one with the most action turns out to be in Dubois, Idaho (not to be confused with Dubois, Montana). I stopped at a gas station there once and was stopped in my tracks by a display in the convenience store: knives with skull-motif handles, baby and toddler-sized military gear, and generous and non-ironic use of fascist symbols. It looked like an arms race was going on in what is a huge county with only about a 1000 residents, 650 of whom live in Dubois. Great access to the Continental Divide is nearby, though.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | September 24, 2009 4:05 PM

Aquaria #590

In his defense, while he still continues to act like an ass and defend his racist comments while asserting he's not a racist, Hyperon has at least admitted to being wrong regarding institutional racism...

Posted by: Hyperon | September 24, 2009 4:06 PM

Celtic Evolution, it is not my responsibility to rectify your abject mathematical illiteracy. It has nothing to do with me that you can't distinguish heavy-handed judgment calls from mere recognition of shifting Bayesian priors. All sorts of details far more trivial than names can change Bayesian priors. It's not my business to school you in such basics.

The reason I'm intolerant of the climate of tiptoeing around race is that I think it represents a significant distraction from more important affairs. You kick up a fuss in this thread over some dumb trifle, and you leave feeling smug and self-satisfied, thinking you've done the world a favour. The truth is you haven't, and you haven't made any real sacrifices. Neither have I, but at least I don't get in my head the counter-productive idea that all I need to do to justify feeling good about myself is walk the beat as a Language Cop.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | September 24, 2009 4:21 PM

Celtic Evolution, it is not my responsibility to rectify your abject mathematical illiteracy. It has nothing to do with me that you can't distinguish heavy-handed judgment calls from mere recognition of shifting Bayesian priors. All sorts of details far more trivial than names can change Bayesian priors.

It is, however, your responsibility to speak clearly and intelligently when making assertions as you have, so as not to leave them so clearly open to the interpretations that we ALL have made regarding your statements, not just me. You can continue to try to project and blame us for "misrepresenting" the ignorant, racist shit that has spewed forth from your own fingers, but at the end of the day, you'll still have to look around and realize that given the lack of anyone but you coming to your defense, you may have to accept that the problem indeed lies with you.

It's not my business to school you in such basics.

Nor is it within your capabilities. Believe me. Such low brow attempts at deprecation from a person who has shown the level of ignorance and hubris that you have is clearly not going to have the slightest effect on me. It does, however, continue to speak volumes about you.

at least I don't get in my head the counter-productive idea that all I need to do to justify feeling good about myself is walk the beat as a Language Cop.

Ahh... so really you've managed to dismiss my points by relegating them to the realm of "language cop". I guess that's quite a bit easier than actually addressing them...

All in all, it's pretty much the response I expected from you, kid... boisterous posturing completely lacking in substance and evasive of any and all relevant points.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | September 24, 2009 4:27 PM

Glenn Beck defines racism:

But Beck, who moonlights on the comedy circuit, stepped on too many sensibilities a few weeks ago, however, when he suggested that Mr Obama has a, "deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture". He went on: "I'm not saying that he doesn't like white people. I'm saying that he has a problem. This guy is, I believe, a racist."

Posted by: Brownian, OM | September 24, 2009 4:33 PM

Celtic Evolution, it is not my responsibility to rectify your abject mathematical illiteracy.

Phew. That's a relief--you clearly don't understand numbers yourself if you think "Whenever I encounter the name "Mohammed", I feel uneasy, because I know that statistically there's a good chance I will be dealing with a Muslim fundamentalist" means the same as "someone's name contains information affecting various Bayesian priors", no matter how many times you yelp out 'Bayesian'.

You might try passing that one off on people who don't already understand Bayesian inference better than you.

So, you're neither a sociologist, a logician, or a statistician.

Let me guess: your degree somehow involves baskets and their manufacture?

Posted by: Hyperon | September 24, 2009 4:43 PM

Ah. That explains a lot.

Posted by: Brownian, OM | September 24, 2009 4:48 PM

As an active supporter of the Conservative Party, I respectfully beg to differ... I may not have the world's best social skills, but do I really come across as "primitive and violent"?

That was meant to be tongue-in-cheek, Walton.

Besides, as a thug, I'm the real primitive and violent one around here.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | September 24, 2009 4:53 PM

BTW, Walton, no, I don't see you as a violent person... with the possible exception of violent reactions to photos of a cervix.