Probably for the same reason the more socialist-minded conclusion is never, “Since we can’t get more public charity we need more private charity to help redress….”

The way the IDW has managed to get random low info voters to acknowledge that mainstream conservative views on nearly every racial cause and controversy are identical to what open white supremacists believe THEREFORE liberals who complain about racism are being bad faith and hysterical is legitimately one of the close but no potato moves of all time.

Yeah, Kelhus, Heather Mac Donald does have typical right wing views on race in policing, immigration, affirmative action, white privilege, and so forth. That's why I'm always swearing online. This is a really racist country and I take the heterodox view that racism is, in fact, bad. No good at all.

Nah, see here's the thing: I have no problem suggesting we raise taxes on Amazon to pay for student loan forgiveness. The fun thing about being a lefty liberal is you can just say the quiet parts out loud. These Bell Curve guys, though... well good luck to anyone who tries get them to say what their policy recommendations are in light of genetic racial IQ disparities.

This is another poorly formulated collectivist view. People are individuals. There are plenty smart black people. There are plenty of average people. When measure IQ by race you get different results. A disproportionate % of Asians score above average. That doesn't mean all Asians are smart or above average. People are people. Individuals.

The "IDW" doesn't have conclusions. It's just a group of individuals that has been doing their own thing for years. They had something in common and Weinstein branded them the IDW. It would be like someone calling Trump, Merkel, and Xi the 3 musketeers. Based on a single thing they had in common and they embraced that. It wouldn't exclude all their differences or the fact they operate completely independently of the label. The fact that this keeps going way over peoples head after they have participated in 2 versions of this thread topic and accumulated a couple hundred posts is quite remarkable.
Two of the "IDW" are actual progressives that talk about structural oppression etc. They disagree with another "IDW" member like Ben Shapiro on the majority of major policy issues

I think what you're missing is the fact that the only reason this issue is attached to the "IDW" is because Harris realized that Murray had been maligned for writing the bell curve. The claims in the book regarding race are conservative, as in the opposite of sensational. The IQ research and his claims are mainstream. All but a fringe minority accept Murrays claim... decades later. Harris had Murray on his podcast to dispel the tsunami of unwarranted hate directed at the validity of his book and its motives.

Harris made it clear he wasn't getting in to Murrays politics and he didn't care about them. He read the book and the social science in the controversial chapter is valid and mainstream. This isn't even a political thing. It isn't an "IDW" thing. It's a social science thing by Harris which of course bleeds in to things like the "IDW" and politics. Even though he wasn't trying to be political and we know everything is political, I hope you can see the difference between defending valid social science and endorsing someones political views. Harris freely admits he's not up to speed on Murrays political views and that's because it wasn't relevant to his point

I think the questions and statements you have made indicate you don't understand the situation at all, which is totally understandable since the majority of posters clearly don't understand and are perfectly willing to project a laughably false narrative

Well, it appears Murray has written 5 books on this subject, so perhaps it isn't that hard after all?

Well, I think a disconnect is that if you were to look at communities at the city/state level and draw a graph of "liberal beliefs" vs income inequality, the curve would look something like x=y. Being the skeptic I am, this leads me to question the sincerity of liberals in trying to tackle this issue. Or giving them the benefit of the doubt they actually do care, their inability to see that current strategies don't seem to be working so well.

The Democratic Party has had a stranglehold on Chicago politics for decades, and yet Chicago seemingly has had pretty horrible results as far as dealing with the structural inequalities present in the city. This is true for a lot of other "Blue" cities. How are we supposed to reconcile this?

Is there a model country that you think would behave better (or has behaved better) if the dominant culture became a population minority in only a few generations?

It seems you seem to be describing a basic hardwiring issue with human beings in general, and framing it as a "whiteness" problem seems like a bad idea for a few different reasons: For example, 1) it isn't true, and 2) Eliciting defensive reactions isn't a particularly effective persuasion technique, 3) increasing polarization, etc.

Wait do you think white people are a minority in this country, and that switched in only a few generations? Where on Earth are you picking this stuff up?


1) What isn't true? You just said it was a basic hardwiring issue. You can't say both that racism is natural and unavoidable but also say it doesn't exist. In your response to Bladesman you have a straight from Rush Limbaugh AM radio take about how liberals are the real racists because Chicago, so like, I dunno. You think liberals are bad actors advancing segregation and inequality because they say those things are bad but haven't fixed them, but with all your hours of podcast studying you still get confused and upset when someone calls the people who say those things are natural and good racist?!?! Yeah I might not really sign up for your persuasive rhetoric class at the learning annex here buddy.

2) Talking about white supremacy doesn't make me defensive at all. Plenty o' white people can chat about the legacy of Jim Crow without getting huffy. Have you literally ever talked to a college graduate about this stuff?

3) I don't know what this means. It's either #2 again or gibberish.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.63756a35f5de

Did you base this entirely on your misreading that article about the top 9.9 percent or do you have any actual evidence to believe that liberal views are either caused by or cause income inequality?

I know you really, really want this to be true. It's a wonderful story to tell yourself, that those snooty libs are only saying racism is bad to hurt your feelings and that nobody actually believes that trans rights are human rights and all the other stuff, but like, what if it is possible not to be a bigot?

Really? Isn't Murray under constant attack from the campus SJW shame culture brigade? That was the whole point of the Intellectual Dark Web!

You know, another cool benefit of being intellectually honest is you don't have to worry about keeping your story straight.

Well, I checked out your link, and the most recent Gini coefficient picture (2012) pretty much supports my argument. The darkest green states (most income inequality) are generally the most progressive ones, and this trend is pretty consistent all the way down the line. So thanks for supporting my argument I guess.

The most recent Gini coefficient figure I could find was 2017. Here is the link.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...r-by-us-state/

It isn't letting me download the graph (for free), but it goes about as one would expect. Liberal/Blue state = high income inequality generally. If you graphed Gini coefficient on one axis and "liberalness" on the other axis (by pretty much any metric) a best fit line would look real close to x=y.

So why are the people that supposedly care the most about remedying systemic inequality the ones that are perpetuating it the most?

I completely missed the part where you provided your model country. Non hispanic whites account for ~60% of the current population, give or take a %. I know you would rather quibble over numbers than address the argument. But I guarantee any country where in a few generations the dominant demographic shrunk to 60% (and continually shrinking) you will see nativist pushback. It is human nature.

The fact things have gone as smoothly as they have is a testament to white Americans in 2019 probably being the least racist group of people that have ever lived in the history of humanity on aggregate.

Even in Western Europe there has been considerable xenophobic pushback at non native %'s well below 40%. In every non-white country it is a mute issue because these countries dont even allow immigration and naturalization to any meaningful extent.

Here is a Gini coefficient graph of cities. Again, pretty much straight line correlation of income inequality and liberal/progressive policies.

Hmmm.......

It appears to be both. He is under constant attack from the SJW shame culture brigade and he has carved out a niche for himself in conservative circles.

I strongly invite everyone to check out the actual data here because that's simply not true. Red, blue, and purple states are scattered all over the place on this. The actual divide seems to be geographic, like the Great Plains/Upper Midwest are generally equal whether it's Minnesota, Iowa, or Wyoming, the deep south is unequal, and so forth. The top 10 is blue-blue-red-red-blue-blue-red-red-red-red. Vermont, the state with an actual socialist in office, is towards the bottom. The most equal state is the one with a UBI lol.


This isn't true, but why don't you develop your theory here. Like LGBT workplace protections increase inequality? Concealed carry licenses spread the wealth?

To return to a recurring theme, you obviously don't really follow politics very closely outside of these Youtubes, but it's absolutely incredible how effective the propaganda here is in convincing you that only the left acts out of self-interest. It's a very neat trick they pulled, the closest you can come to a substantive critique of any political philosophy here is to attack liberals FROM THE LEFT but your apparent solution is mainstream GOP orthodoxy?

At least go to r/stupidpol and be a Strasserite, man, being a Republican is boring as hell.

We can raise taxes on the rich and redistribute to the poor without creating a gigantic governmental bureaucracy extending its tentacles into more and more aspects of the private sector. Far lefties like AOC aren't exactly forthright in regard to their intentions with the latter.
According to Klein in that Vox debate, they are saying what their policy recommendations are:

He [Murray] literally says, and again I can quote this to you if you’d like, he says, for one thing, we have all these low cognitive capacity women giving birth, and by having the social supports for poor children in this country, we are subsidizing them to give birth. What we need to do is take those subsidies away. These women, who according to his book are disproportionately African American, their poor children should not get as much federal support when they are born, so they are disincentivized to have as many children.

You're PART of the backlash, for ****'s sake if you guys won't respect Sam Harris enough to grant him agency and respect his decisions you can at least do that for yourself.

Also, uhhhhhhhhh,

Uh-huh. Where'd you pick this factoid up, pal?

John- MURRAY says what his policy suggestions are. All his defenders in the IDW and this thread... much less so. You might want to check out the words around that Klein quote to see how Harris responded.

Moot.

-Here is the graph I am referring from Fly's link. It is exactly addressing income inequality by state and supports my arguments. The link with more recent data supports the same argument stronger.

The graphs Fly is alluding to address other parameters that are less relevant, but I guess fit his narrative better. I guess he is just going to ignore the city/metro area data which supports my argument even stronger. And I guess he doesn't have any answer why the states/cities that are the most liberal/D have the highest income inequality.

I am not sure R's would do much better, probably a little better just by accident. But I do know they wouldn't be doing all the self-serving moralizing about racism and structural inequality that liberals love to do. They would be doing self-serving moralizing about other issues, like immigration and abortion.

Couple of things:

You didn't answer my question. Explain the mechanics of your theory.

Also,
The GOP is currently in power, holding the Presidency, Senate, and controlling a majority of states. "Would be"?? Seriously let's leave books for later, consider reading a ****ing newspaper from time to time

Neoliberals and conservatives ally to take the country on a 40 year long dash to the right on economic policy: to me, this is because people said racism was bad.

Like New York is super unequal. Do you know who the governor of New York is?

Yeah, but no. Liberal states like Cali and NY pretty much tell the R controlled federal govt FU anytime they try to push any conservative agenda item on them. Which is fine. What effective power do the Republican controlled Presidency and Senate hold over California. Can you cit a single example?

A Democrat. And I am sure he is very vocally concerned about systemic racism and economic inequality, and has a lot of plans to combat it that will most likely only make it worse.