Southern Poverty Law Center - Irresponsible Lying Scumbags?

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
A challenge to [MENTION=10403]Arthur Brain[/MENTION]: same challenge for you artie - explain why the SPLC shouldn't be held responsible for the role they played in the violence that erupted on Middlebury campus

discuss their placing Ben Carson on their "extremist watch list"

Why should they be? They're not responsible for how students act during a speech simply for pointing out his odious views. There's no excuse for violence like that whichever side it emanates from. For a reasoned approach, try reading this instead of attempting to blame a group.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/03/middlebury-free-speech-violence/518667/

Where it comes to Carson, who knows, cite to something and let's see.

discuss the case of Maajid Nawaz, a fellow brit - is he a far right zealot, a troll, a crank?

He was, an outright religious extremist no less. He isn't now so what and when did the SPLC have to say about him?

it's easy to sling insults and labels, how being more than that here at tol, how about actually engaging more substantially?

I would ask if you were being deliberately ironic but na...
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
....pointing out his odious views.

on what basis do you call his views "odious"?

have you read The Bell Curve?

or are you taking your cues from the Atlantic piece?

here's the assessment by Peter Beinart, the author of Atlantic piece: "Some of Murray’s views are indeed odious. Twenty-three years ago, he co-authored The Bell Curve, which argued that differences in intelligence account for much of the class stratification in American life, that intelligence is partly genetic, and that there may be genetic differences between races"

let's take them one at a time

1. Beinart claims that Murray argued that differences in intelligence account for much of the class stratification in American life

Murray makes a nuanced rebuttal to that, correcting the errors in the assessment given by Beinart, who appears to be working from the SPLC's smear piece. One particular that he stresses is that his conclusions are drawn from data on non-Hispanic Whites.

But regardless, is it "odious" to suggest that the data support the idea that "differences in intelligence account for much of the class stratification in American life"? That seems rather obvious to me. You don't tend to find many successful software engineers in Silicon Valley, for instance, with IQs below 100. And I doubt that many of Beinart's colleagues at The Atlantic have IQs below 100.



2. Beinart claims that Murray argued that intelligence is partly genetic

Again, this seems obvious and non-controversial, and Murray proves it using data on non-Hispanic Whites

Do you find the statement that "intelligence is partly genetic" to be odious?


3. Beinart claims that Murray argued that there may be genetic differences between races

again, this seems obvious to me, and Murray supports it using data on Ashkenazim Jews, Asians and other racial groups

do you find this argument to be "odious"?
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
A challenge to [MENTION=10403]Arthur Brain[/MENTION]: same challenge for you artie - explain why the SPLC shouldn't be held responsible for the role they played in the violence that erupted on Middlebury campus

Why should they be? They're not responsible for how students act during a speech simply for pointing out his odious views. There's no excuse for violence like that whichever side it emanates from. For a reasoned approach, try reading this instead of attempting to blame a group.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/03/middlebury-free-speech-violence/518667/

Why should they be? Because their smear job on Murray is defamatory, inaccurate and borderline libelous

read this and tell me what you think about it:

and compare the assessment of Murray's work by the author of the Atlantic piece to Murray's rebuttal
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
on what basis do you call his views "odious"?

have you read The Bell Curve?

or are you taking your cues from the Atlantic piece?

here's the assessment by Peter Beinart, the author of Atlantic piece: "Some of Murray’s views are indeed odious. Twenty-three years ago, he co-authored The Bell Curve, which argued that differences in intelligence account for much of the class stratification in American life, that intelligence is partly genetic, and that there may be genetic differences between races"

let's take them one at a time

1. Beinart claims that Murray argued that differences in intelligence account for much of the class stratification in American life

Murray makes a nuanced rebuttal to that, correcting the errors in the assessment given by Beinart, who appears to be working from the SPLC's smear piece. One particular that he stresses is that his conclusions are drawn from data on non-Hispanic Whites.

But regardless, is it "odious" to suggest that the data support the idea that "differences in intelligence account for much of the class stratification in American life"? That seems rather obvious to me. You don't tend to find many successful software engineers in Silicon Valley, for instance, with IQs below 100. And I doubt that many of Beinart's colleagues at The Atlantic have IQs below 100.



2. Beinart claims that Murray argued that intelligence is partly genetic

Again, this seems obvious and non-controversial, and Murray proves it using data on non-Hispanic Whites

Do you find the statement that "intelligence is partly genetic" to be odious?


3. Beinart claims that Murray argued that there may be genetic differences between races

again, this seems obvious to me, and Murray supports it using data on Ashkenazim Jews, Asians and other racial groups

do you find this argument to be "odious"?

No, I haven't read it in its entirety but I've seen enough for it to be debunked by plenty. He courts controversy with his opinions. Does he deserve notoriety as a hate figure? Not really IMO no but then again, the SPLR are hardly responsible for what students do on campus or the ACLU or other groups. I find his views lacking and verging on misogyny in certain areas. Some people can be highly intelligent once it's allowed to bloom away from environments that suppress it so many factors can play their part. Take Megan Phelps-Roper after she'd broken away from the brainwashing of her lunatic parents at Westboro for example. A highly intelligent, eloquent and thoughtful young woman, everything that her parents weren't.

Genetic differences between races? Sure, but not where it comes to intelligence or gender either.
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
... I find his views... verging on misogyny in certain areas.

Genetic differences between races? Sure, but not where it comes to ... gender ...

can you expand on this?

what, specifically has he written that leads you to the conclusion that he's misogynous?

and what are you trying to say about genetic differences and gender?
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
it might help if you were to quote something Murray has written, or said, rather than what others have said about him
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
can you expand on this?

what, specifically has he written that leads you to the conclusion that he's misogynous?

and what are you trying to say about genetic differences and gender?

The following:

Murray has attracted controversy for his views on differences between gender and racial groups. In a paper published in 2005 titled "Where Are the Female Einsteins?", Murray stated, among other things, that "no woman has been a significant original thinker in any of the world's great philosophical traditions. In the sciences, the most abstract field is mathematics, where the number of great female mathematicians is approximately two (Emmy Noether definitely, Sonya Kovalevskaya maybe). In the other hard sciences, the contributions of great women have usually been empirical rather than theoretical, with leading cases in point being Henrietta Leavitt, Dorothy Hodgkin, Lise Meitner, Irene Joliot-Curie and Marie Curie herself."[54] Asked about this in 2014, he stated he could only recall one important female philosopher, "and she was not a significant thinker in the estimation of historians of philosophy," adding "So, yeah, I still stick with that. Until somebody gives me evidence to the contrary, I'll stick with that statement."[55]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Murray_(political_scientist)

A product of the times perhaps.
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
I don't know much about them, but am curious as to why you would characterize them as "bonkers"?

Paul Cameron for a start. A far right religious nutball organization and it's aforementioned founder was found guilty of misappropriating research where it came to his aCW like obsession with homosexuality.

C'mon dude, you know all about this so don't play coy.

Oh, and why so reticent to address the whacko's of Westboro? I can guess why as you've venerated ole 'Fred' as a "Godly man" but what is "Godly" exactly about celebrating those killed on 9/11?

:think:
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
a slightly different perspective:
Rising Above I.Q.
[Nicholas Kristof]


In the mosaic of America, three groups that have been unusually successful are Asian-Americans, Jews and West Indian blacks — and in that there may be some lessons for the rest of us.

Asian-Americans are renowned — or notorious — for ruining grade curves in schools across the land, and as a result they constitute about 20 percent of students at Harvard College.

As for Jews, they have received about one-third of all Nobel Prizes in science received by Americans. One survey found that a quarter of Jewish adults in the United States have earned a graduate degree, compared with 6 percent of the population as a whole.

West Indian blacks, those like Colin Powell whose roots are in the Caribbean, are one-third more likely to graduate from college than African-Americans as a whole, and their median household income is almost one-third higher.

These three groups may help debunk the myth of success as a simple product of intrinsic intellect, for they represent three different races and histories. In the debate over nature and nurture, they suggest the importance of improved nurture — which, from a public policy perspective, means a focus on education. Their success may also offer some lessons for you, me, our children — and for the broader effort to chip away at poverty in this country.


Richard Nisbett cites each of these groups in his superb recent book, “Intelligence and How to Get It.” Dr. Nisbett, a professor of psychology at the University of Michigan, argues that what we think of as intelligence is quite malleable and owes little or nothing to genetics.

“I think the evidence is very good that there is no genetic contribution to the black-white difference on I.Q.,” he said, adding that there also seems to be no genetic difference in intelligence between whites and Asians. As for Jews, some not-very-rigorous studies have found modestly above-average I.Q. for Ashkenazi Jews, though not for Sephardic Jews. Dr. Nisbett is somewhat skeptical, noting that these results emerge from samples that may not be representative.

In any case, he says, the evidence is overwhelming that what is distinctive about these three groups is not innate advantage but rather a tendency to get the most out of the firepower they have.

One large study followed a group of Chinese-Americans who initially did slightly worse on the verbal portion of I.Q. tests than other Americans and the same on math portions. But beginning in grade school, the Chinese outperformed their peers, apparently because they worked harder.

The Chinese-Americans were only half as likely as other children to repeat a grade in school, and by high school they were doing much better than European-Americans with the same I.Q.

As adults, 55 percent of the Chinese-American sample entered high-status occupations, compared with one-third of whites. To succeed in a profession or as managers, whites needed an average I.Q. of about 100, while Chinese-Americans needed an I.Q. of just 93. In short, Chinese-Americans managed to achieve more than whites who on paper had the same intellect.

A common thread among these three groups may be an emphasis on diligence or education, perhaps linked in part to an immigrant drive. Jews and Chinese have a particularly strong tradition of respect for scholarship, with Jews said to have achieved complete adult male literacy — the better to read the Talmud — some 1,700 years before any other group.

The parallel force in China was Confucianism and its reverence for education. You can still sometimes see in rural China the remains of a monument to a villager who triumphed in the imperial exams. In contrast, if an American town has someone who earns a Ph.D., the impulse is not to build a monument but to pass a hat.

Among West Indians, the crucial factors for success seem twofold: the classic diligence and hard work associated with immigrants, and intact families. The upshot is higher family incomes and fathers more involved in child-rearing.

What’s the policy lesson from these three success stories?

It’s that the most decisive weapons in the war on poverty aren’t transfer payments but education, education, education. For at-risk households, that starts with social workers making visits to encourage such basic practices as talking to children. One study found that a child of professionals (disproportionately white) has heard about 30 million words spoken by age 3; a black child raised on welfare has heard only 10 million words, leaving that child at a disadvantage in school.

The next step is intensive early childhood programs, followed by improved elementary and high schools, and programs to defray college costs.

Perhaps the larger lesson is a very empowering one: success depends less on intellectual endowment than on perseverance and drive. As Professor Nisbett puts it, “Intelligence and academic achievement are very much under people’s control.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/07/opinion/07kristof.html

 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
The following:

Murray has attracted controversy for his views on differences between gender and racial groups. In a paper published in 2005 titled "Where Are the Female Einsteins?", Murray stated, among other things, that "no woman has been a significant original thinker in any of the world's great philosophical traditions.

is he wrong?

can you name one?

In the sciences, the most abstract field is mathematics, where the number of great female mathematicians is approximately two (Emmy Noether definitely, Sonya Kovalevskaya maybe).

is he wrong?

In the other hard sciences, the contributions of great women have usually been empirical rather than theoretical, with leading cases in point being Henrietta Leavitt, Dorothy Hodgkin, Lise Meitner, Irene Joliot-Curie and Marie Curie herself."[54]

again, is he wrong?
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
you know all about this ...

actually i don't - gave it a quick wiki and i do remember the controversy around Duggan, but hadn't associated it with FRC

and james dobson and focus on the family ring a bell, from twenty years back

ok, you have what you feel are legitimate reasons to call them "bonkers" - some of the controversies around them justify that


it's unfortunate that the SPLC brands them as an anti-gay hate group.

and telling that they don't also brand them as a anti-(abortion, divorce, embryonic stem-cell research and pornography) group
 
Top