Here I am having a casual, but I think important conversation with you about some places where I think it is necessary to clarify concepts about race. I find it mostly elementary to be against racism. Most people recognize that racial discrimination is fraught with moral hazards, but when you consider the case of Affirmative Action (for example) often people fail to make the distinction between racial discrimination for the purposes of inclusion and racial discrimination for the purposes of exclusion. That is how we get nonsensical phrases like ‘reverse racism’ which implies that it can be morally acceptable to racially discriminate for some races, and morally repugnant to racially discriminate for other races. If you accept the premise that race is not a good measure of man, and that humans should be considered equal under the law, then you run into some logical tangles if you advocate anything other than a racially agnostic position. I expect that I will use the term ‘racially agnostic’ a good deal in the future. I like the way it fits. This will be my first discriminatory post, where I will keep the video above the fold, as I get comfortable with the call on the distinction between my paid and unpaid subscribers.
In this pseudo-dialog I am making the distinction between genetics and racialisms. I say that, having nothing to do with a hard science, racial concepts are entirely too fuzzy to survive the discipline of any investigations into cause and effect. I am also saying that the entirety of the social sciences are insufficiently rigorous to be of great import when they use self-reported race as a predictive or explanatory factor. I believe there is some circular reasoning in most of it, much of which can and should be short circuited by serious psychological analysis. For this primary reason, I got into some conflict with the following two interlocutors.
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Stoic Observations to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.