Just common-sense stuff, removing the extremes of thought on all sides. There should not be any race-based legal codes. Real racial discrimination should be discouraged by law. Simple average outcome difference should not alone be considered evidence of discrimination. And overall race should have much less of a role in our conversations and debates than it currently does.
Just common-sense stuff, removing the extremes of thought on all sides. There should not be any race-based legal codes. Real racial discrimination should be discouraged by law. Simple average outcome difference should not alone be considered evidence of discrimination. And overall race should have much less of a role in our conversations and debates than it currently does.
There needs to be an acknowledgement that real group unfairness exists. Both in historical terms, leading to differing cultural patterns, as well as overt discrimination on the individual level (less common today than in the past, fortunately). Not all of the racial gaps are genetic. Pure individualism sounds like saying тАЬletтАЩs just move on,тАЭ which will not be psychologically sufficient to move us out of the current rut. And no, I donтАЩt claim to have all the answers for how to make this synthesis happen.
"You are factually correct, but politically incorrect, so you lose," provides no possible basis for a synthesis. Acknowledgements of truths are good but only work if they are reciprocal and go both ways, but they don't.
I generally agree, but the term тАЬgroup unfairnessтАЭ bothers me if by it you mean unfairness by a group. Collectives are theoretical groupings by arbitrary characteristics. Theoretical groupings canтАЩt act, only individuals can. When individuals are unfair, that should be reported, condemned, and, if illegal, prosecuted. But the sins of one person are not the sins of the groups to which he belongs.
There is nothing тАЬarbitraryтАЭ about тАЬblack peopleтАЭ as a group. ThatтАЩs a very obvious shelling point for coordinated political, social, and cultural action. They donтАЩt all vote 90% democrat because all of thy тАШem decided as individuals that it was best for the country. They asked тАЬwhatтАЩs the best party for us blacksтАЭ and that was the answer most coordinated on.
You may wish that black and bridge player are both equally arbitrary groupings, but you know itтАЩs not true.
This is an empirical question not a philosophical one.
It sort of circles back to the age old (and as I said earlier, mostly absurd) philosophical debate about universals. You have to be careful not to treat them too concretely, but you also canтАЩt just reject them. As far as I can tell a purely rational treatment of the question always ends unsatisfactorily, but from a practical standpoint it works just fine.
LKY is the most explicit advocate of HBD in real world governance and you can go see what he said and what he did for examples.
A key piece of LKYs insight is that you need a dominant majority ethnic group with enough solidarity to keep political control. If you donтАЩt have that society will inevitably descend into racial gangs preying on one another. This is why he crafted Singapores immigration policy to keep the Han a firm majority and worked to keep the Han based pap the dominant party.
Having established this han dominance LKY took actions to try and integrate the different groups together (in education, language, public service, housing , etc) while also offering each group its own private spaces if the my respected singapores laws and customs.
The bell curve and Steve sailer also offer suggestions.
Just common-sense stuff, removing the extremes of thought on all sides. There should not be any race-based legal codes. Real racial discrimination should be discouraged by law. Simple average outcome difference should not alone be considered evidence of discrimination. And overall race should have much less of a role in our conversations and debates than it currently does.
How does that differ from treating people like individuals?
There needs to be an acknowledgement that real group unfairness exists. Both in historical terms, leading to differing cultural patterns, as well as overt discrimination on the individual level (less common today than in the past, fortunately). Not all of the racial gaps are genetic. Pure individualism sounds like saying тАЬletтАЩs just move on,тАЭ which will not be psychologically sufficient to move us out of the current rut. And no, I donтАЩt claim to have all the answers for how to make this synthesis happen.
"You are factually correct, but politically incorrect, so you lose," provides no possible basis for a synthesis. Acknowledgements of truths are good but only work if they are reciprocal and go both ways, but they don't.
I generally agree, but the term тАЬgroup unfairnessтАЭ bothers me if by it you mean unfairness by a group. Collectives are theoretical groupings by arbitrary characteristics. Theoretical groupings canтАЩt act, only individuals can. When individuals are unfair, that should be reported, condemned, and, if illegal, prosecuted. But the sins of one person are not the sins of the groups to which he belongs.
There is nothing тАЬarbitraryтАЭ about тАЬblack peopleтАЭ as a group. ThatтАЩs a very obvious shelling point for coordinated political, social, and cultural action. They donтАЩt all vote 90% democrat because all of thy тАШem decided as individuals that it was best for the country. They asked тАЬwhatтАЩs the best party for us blacksтАЭ and that was the answer most coordinated on.
You may wish that black and bridge player are both equally arbitrary groupings, but you know itтАЩs not true.
This is an empirical question not a philosophical one.
It sort of circles back to the age old (and as I said earlier, mostly absurd) philosophical debate about universals. You have to be careful not to treat them too concretely, but you also canтАЩt just reject them. As far as I can tell a purely rational treatment of the question always ends unsatisfactorily, but from a practical standpoint it works just fine.
Does Singapore treat people like individuals?
Kind of but kinda not.
LKY is the most explicit advocate of HBD in real world governance and you can go see what he said and what he did for examples.
A key piece of LKYs insight is that you need a dominant majority ethnic group with enough solidarity to keep political control. If you donтАЩt have that society will inevitably descend into racial gangs preying on one another. This is why he crafted Singapores immigration policy to keep the Han a firm majority and worked to keep the Han based pap the dominant party.
Having established this han dominance LKY took actions to try and integrate the different groups together (in education, language, public service, housing , etc) while also offering each group its own private spaces if the my respected singapores laws and customs.
The bell curve and Steve sailer also offer suggestions.