Does it matter how many opportunities you give someone when his or her IQ is under 90?
Both leftists and conservatives once believed that equality under the law would normalize outcomes across racial demographics. When this didn’t happen, leftists created a new excuse for black dysfunction: systemic oppression. Discrimination had to be at the heart of it all because the only other explanation - inherent racial differences - was verboten.
On some level, leftists know that affirmative action (aka positive discrimination) is required to normalize outcomes for non-whites. Leftists just refuse to admit the why.
Meanwhile, classical liberals and conservatives are genuinely confused because meritocracy is so self-evidently the correct way.
Then you have the race realists who also recognize that certain racial demos need favoritism to succeed, and that such favoritism is one way ticket to eventual societal collapse. We can’t have unqualified surgeons and pilots and engineers guiding our civilization.
In the end, identity politics and communism are natural bedfellows. If every meritocracy sees non-whites on the bottom of the totem pole, then it only makes sense that non-whites would embrace alternative standards for success.
When Black Lives Matter tells you that black liberation is inseparable from Marxism, they are telling you the truth. If you want to defeat communism, you are necessarily going to have to take various “unpopular” identity politics positions. There’s no escaping it.
But I would imagine there are certain jobs that can be done by someone with a lower IQ? Also not putting them in a position they can’t handle would be a good policy. That does zero favors
Also not outing them in a position they can’t handle would be a good policy. That does zero favors
Which is how we get to the notion that racism can be a positive thing. If we address reality and the IQ distribution of the various racial populations, we'd arrive at some societal messaging telling blacks that no they aren't going to be doctors and rocket scientists but they might find some success working with their hands as a mechanic and that they can succeed in life if they play to their strengths rather than their weaknesses. Put them on a path to success rather than allow them to wallow in failure as they try to live up to the standards of other races. No one likes to try something and fail, and when you set someone to a task at which they are destined to fail, their inevitable failure will breed resentment and bitterness, which is what we see festering in many American blacks.
Stefan Molyneux has made this point. Sure you may have some outliers that can be doctors but holding everyone to the same standard is key. Seeing more Whites/Asians in a field is not reason to whine endlessly about disparities. We live in a society where anyone who has it better than you must have achieved it through some sinister method and then the whole zero sum game idea is pushed. I remember reading Discrimination and Disparities by Sowell and wishing it could be mandatory for middle school kids
we'd arrive at some societal messaging telling blacks
or we don't tell [insert item here] anything. Why would we have societal messaging targeting [insert item here].
There may very well be racial traits limiting what an individual can and cannot achieve, but I really think keeping the focus on race (just reversing the message) doesn't do anyone any favor.
But I would imagine there are certain jobs that can be done by someone with a lower IQ?
There are, and they might even pay a decent living if we secured the border and told the corporations that are addicted to an infinite supply of cheap labor to eat shit.
Lower IQs lower inhibitions. Which means poorer reaction to stimuli and handling emotions.
Even the most braindead retard jobs out there don't want the liability of having someone who might fly off the handle at unknown stimulus and possibly hurt themselves, the equipment/product, or others.
Anybody below 80, we're basically putting on a society-wide puppet show to pretend their contributions matter, because to do otherwise would potentially foster violent resentment.
We have a difficult path ahead. How do we show due reverence to the value of all human life, when there is no dignity to be found in work? How do we make people whose jobs can be replaced by a server with a few graphics cards in it feel like their contributions are valuable?
If we don't find a way to do this, we're going to be failing our fellow man in a catastrophic way.
There used to be value in less skilled work. This societap unbalance has been deliberately destroyed by the government and corps working together to destroy our industrial base to turn us into a "service economy". When they brag about that term, what they're actually doing is laughing about making a perpetual underclass of corporate slaves by filling the economy with shit jobs.
There's always going to be a need for physically demanding jobs require some level of skill, and it doesn't take a very high IQ to do those jobs. Where lower IQ people tend to have problems is abstract thinking. Such a person might be perfectly capable of doing math required for their work because they do it over and over without having to apply the concepts to new things, even if they would never understand it in a more theoretical context. The problem is those jobs will always have shitty pay as long as we have hordes pouring across the Rio Grande looking for a handout.
If every meritocracy sees non-whites on the bottom of the totem pole, then it only makes sense that non-whites would embrace alternative standards for success... If you want to defeat communism, you are necessarily going to have to take various “unpopular” identity politics positions. There’s no escaping it.
I think this is the most important takeaway from your comment, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I interpret this to mean that a pure meritocracy can't work and is doomed from the start to fail - in any sufficiently "diverse" society - because you'll always have one group that dominates others, and one group that is worse than the others. The failing groups will always unite around identity politics or some other non-meritocratic politics to seize power, because that's the rational thing to do when forced to play a game you can't possibly win. This will always cause cultural instability and a sense of "injustice" at best.
In that case, the only nations meritocracy can work in are where:
it's mostly homogenous, there are no subgroups at all
one group (minority or majority) so absolutely dominates the others that the inferiors cannot even gain a foothold in the "cultural narrative"
the national culture somehow trains minority groups to accept their status as inferior
there is strict balkanization or even a caste system that keeps the groups separated - some can be meritocratic within their in-group, the others can do whatever the fuck they want - nobody dominates and it really isn't a single nation.
So we'll have to choose what we want to be, stop pretending everyone is the same, and engage in the culture war on realistic terms.
We're already seeing signs of your last scenario. Competent whites are moving to places where they're valued (red states) and seeking out companies where they can avoid being ruled over by diversity hires (ie they're fleeing Big Tech or not going to in begin with). They know there's no future in a system that isn't meritocratic.
Does it matter how many opportunities you give someone when his or her IQ is under 90?
Both leftists and conservatives once believed that equality under the law would normalize outcomes across racial demographics. When this didn’t happen, leftists created a new excuse for black dysfunction: systemic oppression. Discrimination had to be at the heart of it all because the only other explanation - inherent racial differences - was verboten.
On some level, leftists know that affirmative action (aka positive discrimination) is required to normalize outcomes for non-whites. Leftists just refuse to admit the why.
Meanwhile, classical liberals and conservatives are genuinely confused because meritocracy is so self-evidently the correct way.
Then you have the race realists who also recognize that certain racial demos need favoritism to succeed, and that such favoritism is one way ticket to eventual societal collapse. We can’t have unqualified surgeons and pilots and engineers guiding our civilization.
In the end, identity politics and communism are natural bedfellows. If every meritocracy sees non-whites on the bottom of the totem pole, then it only makes sense that non-whites would embrace alternative standards for success.
When Black Lives Matter tells you that black liberation is inseparable from Marxism, they are telling you the truth. If you want to defeat communism, you are necessarily going to have to take various “unpopular” identity politics positions. There’s no escaping it.
But I would imagine there are certain jobs that can be done by someone with a lower IQ? Also not putting them in a position they can’t handle would be a good policy. That does zero favors
Which is how we get to the notion that racism can be a positive thing. If we address reality and the IQ distribution of the various racial populations, we'd arrive at some societal messaging telling blacks that no they aren't going to be doctors and rocket scientists but they might find some success working with their hands as a mechanic and that they can succeed in life if they play to their strengths rather than their weaknesses. Put them on a path to success rather than allow them to wallow in failure as they try to live up to the standards of other races. No one likes to try something and fail, and when you set someone to a task at which they are destined to fail, their inevitable failure will breed resentment and bitterness, which is what we see festering in many American blacks.
Stefan Molyneux has made this point. Sure you may have some outliers that can be doctors but holding everyone to the same standard is key. Seeing more Whites/Asians in a field is not reason to whine endlessly about disparities. We live in a society where anyone who has it better than you must have achieved it through some sinister method and then the whole zero sum game idea is pushed. I remember reading Discrimination and Disparities by Sowell and wishing it could be mandatory for middle school kids
or we don't tell [insert item here] anything. Why would we have societal messaging targeting [insert item here].
There may very well be racial traits limiting what an individual can and cannot achieve, but I really think keeping the focus on race (just reversing the message) doesn't do anyone any favor.
Ideally to counteract the current cultural momentum which is quite destructive.
There are, and they might even pay a decent living if we secured the border and told the corporations that are addicted to an infinite supply of cheap labor to eat shit.
Lower IQs lower inhibitions. Which means poorer reaction to stimuli and handling emotions.
Even the most braindead retard jobs out there don't want the liability of having someone who might fly off the handle at unknown stimulus and possibly hurt themselves, the equipment/product, or others.
Anybody below 80, we're basically putting on a society-wide puppet show to pretend their contributions matter, because to do otherwise would potentially foster violent resentment.
We have a difficult path ahead. How do we show due reverence to the value of all human life, when there is no dignity to be found in work? How do we make people whose jobs can be replaced by a server with a few graphics cards in it feel like their contributions are valuable?
If we don't find a way to do this, we're going to be failing our fellow man in a catastrophic way.
There used to be value in less skilled work. This societap unbalance has been deliberately destroyed by the government and corps working together to destroy our industrial base to turn us into a "service economy". When they brag about that term, what they're actually doing is laughing about making a perpetual underclass of corporate slaves by filling the economy with shit jobs.
There's always going to be a need for physically demanding jobs require some level of skill, and it doesn't take a very high IQ to do those jobs. Where lower IQ people tend to have problems is abstract thinking. Such a person might be perfectly capable of doing math required for their work because they do it over and over without having to apply the concepts to new things, even if they would never understand it in a more theoretical context. The problem is those jobs will always have shitty pay as long as we have hordes pouring across the Rio Grande looking for a handout.
I think this is the most important takeaway from your comment, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I interpret this to mean that a pure meritocracy can't work and is doomed from the start to fail - in any sufficiently "diverse" society - because you'll always have one group that dominates others, and one group that is worse than the others. The failing groups will always unite around identity politics or some other non-meritocratic politics to seize power, because that's the rational thing to do when forced to play a game you can't possibly win. This will always cause cultural instability and a sense of "injustice" at best.
In that case, the only nations meritocracy can work in are where:
So we'll have to choose what we want to be, stop pretending everyone is the same, and engage in the culture war on realistic terms.
We're already seeing signs of your last scenario. Competent whites are moving to places where they're valued (red states) and seeking out companies where they can avoid being ruled over by diversity hires (ie they're fleeing Big Tech or not going to in begin with). They know there's no future in a system that isn't meritocratic.