Wednesday, May 5, 2010

The Futility of Arguing Race and Intelligence With Liberals

Since liberals started making a national controversy of involving the e-mail Harvard law student Stephanie Grace wrote (which was forwarded to a black group by Yelena Shagall six months later) in which she stated their was a possibility of blacks having a lower average intelligence than whites, I've attempted to argue on various liberal websites about this topic, with no success at all. Instead, I discovered that liberals do not even want to touch this topic. On pretty much every issue from healthcare to abortion, liberals relish a debate with right-wingers. But when it comes to racial differences in intelligence, liberals' only goal is to shut their opponents up.

A lot of the comments I made arguing point that racial differences in intelligence were simply deleted from various blogs and websites. Those that were not were usually met with comments simply calling me (and others who attempted to debate the issue) a "racist." Indeed, one liberal commenter at Above the Law responded to a multi-paragrah comment I made by writing that most of what I wrote was worthy of argument due to fact it was "racist." Unlike when they discuss black crime, they don't even bother with their standard explanations for black deficiency - slavery, Jim Crow, poverty, institutionalized racism, etc. They just say that the idea of racial differences in intelligence is just so racist that it's not even worth debating.

Another common response from liberals to people who discuss race and intelligence is that if you're not a scientist, you can't say anything on race and intelligence (another liberal at Above the Law responded to my comment this way). The requirement to be a scientist to discuss science, naturally does not apply to liberals. Otherwise, we couldn't have the joy of reading journalism majors inform us of how global warming will destroy the planet if we don't give the government more power. Likewise, this does not stop sociology students who do not know the difference between circuit-switching and packet-switching from calling for "net neutrality," nor does it prevent liberal arts majors who don't know what the "broadband" in "broadband Internet" means from criticizing the recent court case limiting the FCC's regulation of broadband Internet companies.

The reason for the liberals' absolute refusal to even debate this topic is obvious: they've seen the statistics and understand that it's pretty much impossible to refute the results of pretty much every test that measures intelligence or a function of it. If they had to acknowledge that there were racial differences in intelligence, then that means egalitarianism is founded on a lie, which means their entire worldview is essentially incorrect. Thus, it's easier for them just to call their opponents racists and move on. Ignorance is bliss.


  1. One common liberal response I've seen is basically "where's your evidence?" But they won't accept any evidence, because only a "racist" would even study such a thing and there are so many confounding factors and hey, "intelligence" isn't even real anyway. Frankly, I prefer the honestly close-minded ones to those who pretend to be open-minded.

  2. What the liberals are not facing up to is that the racial viewpoint may just be correct. What happens when the evidence vindicates the racist point of view? Maybe, just maybe, racism is not the ultimate evil but instead a recognition of some unpleasant truths.

    The odd thing is, I think this case is something of a turning point. It demonstrates that liberalism is an ideology whose foundations are so fragile that it must respond to an incident as trivial as this with the full furies of repression. The facade of liberalism could be shattered by someone standing up for the truth about race and IQ.

    But to get back to my starting statement, perhaps the liberals do realize that there are inherent racially based characteristics. The problem is not so much that liberals lie to the rest of the world. It is that they must lie to themselves. And now they must face up to their lies.

  3. The problem is that leftists don't accept that kind of data. Remember, tests are "culturally biased."

  4. TAS,
    What do you think Jay-Z's IQ is?


  5. If he were the typical rapper, I would guess 85 or below. But, he's capable about singing about things other than having sex with strangers at night clubs, and he's apparently a successful businessman, so I would guess above 100.