[shkkmo]

What does that have to do with what I was talking about? To the best of my knowledge, he was not advocating for the enslavement of anyone. However, I don't care to argue about or defend his writings.

My issue is with the belief that by alienating someone from your 'polite society' you will somehow shame them into changing their views.

Social shaming works only when it is done by people within the shame-ee's social group. By excluding a person, you are directly decreasing the effectiveness of that shaming.

[zardgiv]

I appreciate you not challenging the fact that he espouses the belief that some ethnic groups are genetically good slaves.

However, you must be really confused (or just not thinking very hard) if you think that people are trying to change Moldbug's mind.

[shkkmo]

The person I was responding to was using social shaming as one of this two justifications for exclusion.

I don't appreciate your tone.

[zardgiv]

OK, so you recognize that in this case social shaming is not being used to change Moldbug's mind. If you're only talking about one of two justifications, you probably shouldn't state your case as "social shaming can only work when..."

I don't appreciate apologists for people who claim that some ethnic groups make genetically good slaves, so here we are.

[shkkmo]

> If you're only talking about one of two justifications, you probably shouldn't state your case as "social shaming can only work when..."

I don't see why not.

> I don't appreciate apologists for people who claim that some ethnic groups make genetically good slaves, so here we are.

How am I an apologist? I have defended nothing, merely clarified.

I am now done replying to you as you seem to be merely interested in picking a fight rather than having a discussion.

[zardgiv]

Usually people who aren't trying to muddy the waters and defend will make a normative statement about the underlying topic. What's your take on whether some ethnic groups are genetically good slaves?

[rmsrmsrms]

I think the argument he makes consists of several claims:

1) black people are an ethnic group or race // exact terminology and semantics is debatable

2) being black means you have a lower IQ (on average) // true in the US

3) IQ is in part genetically determined // true

4) the lower IQ of blacks is due to genetics // pure speculation, not possible to verify due to poor environment

5) having a lower IQ makes you a better slave // speculation

6) being black makes you a genetically better slave // follows from 4 and 5

It's possible that Moldbug reconsidered claim 4 due to all the attention it got. He reads HN.

[shkkmo]

I said I wasn't going to be drawn into this, but here I go anyway...:

I'm pretty sure he does believe 4), but also believes that IQ is not that important and that other things (such as character) matter more.

> Once you stop believing in the mystical importance of intelligence, I think it's very easy to accept that it's unequally distributed (as athletic talent certainly is). I understand that this is very hard for our society, and especially for people like me who grew up believing that good grades were holy and professors were gods.

He doesn't make the 5) claim you attribute to him:

> I would make a terrible agricultural laborer and an awful agricultural slave. (I am also not very good at being a master, though for different reasons.) Am I praising myself for this lack of talent? Yes, it may have something to do with my high intelligence. (It also has something to do with my poor character.) Intelligence can be a liability. You don't have to be an agricultural slave to realize this -- all you need to do is go to an American high school.

[zardgiv]

If you wish hard enough, anything is possible!

Unfortunately, we're left to examine the evidence. He could easily defuse all of these situations that have led to him being disinvited in the past. In fact, he made an article specifically for this shitstorm, and nowhere did he disavow these writings.

Tying yourself in knots to come up with a way he's OK just makes you look silly, at best.

[rmsrmsrms]

I was just trying to outline specifically what was bogus about his argument. That claim 4 is pure speculation is a pretty serious flaw. At no point did I make a comment about the conference - I don't even know what I think about it.

[greenrd]

Point 5 is moot and offensive because slavery is wrong. Even Moldbug now claims he does not support chattel slavery. However he is very keen on tyranny, which he correctly identifies as akin to slavery.

[rmsrmsrms]

Sure, ok. Just to be clear, since it's possibly unclear, I wasn't claiming 5 myself.