If you're too dumb to do moral calculus then you can only go off instinct when you don't have a cultural script to lean on, and instincts are genetic.
Emphasis mine. I think this is a fundamental thing that racists don't understand: our instincts may be genetic, but our learned experiences and moral calculus override our instincts. populations acting off of instincts indeed will not be compatible, but I argue civilized populations who act on logic instead of instinct are more than capable of coexisting.
That isn't really an anti-racist perspective, in fact it's basically what most of us believe to varying degrees. Our ability to apply moral calculus and learned experiences is ALSO genetic. Below a certain threshold you cant participate in a society, and if you're demographic has a bell curve that puts critical mass of your population below said theshhold, your demographic is not compatible with civilization.
That's how it's always been really, this idea thay racism is based around "hate of differences" is new, and fucking nonsense. The old European thinkers looked at blacks and said "shit i can't do anything with that"
Yeah, that probably is not a thing, otherwise they'd be doing it recreationally too.
If you think instincts are perfect prebaked answers to every specific situation then you're obviously going to be confused like that.
It's more like the outcome of the balance of "caring more about the innocent dog's entire life and existence vs my brief personal inconvenience" instincts.
For all we know she might have a history of being abusive. Obviously sub 90 IQ, but a sub 90 IQ is way more likely to just leave the dog at the airport and not think further than that.
If you're too dumb to think to check if you can just take a dog on a flight unannounced, then you're too dumb to do moral calculus.
If you're too dumb to do moral calculus then you can only go off instinct when you don't have a cultural script to lean on, and instincts are genetic.
Emphasis mine. I think this is a fundamental thing that racists don't understand: our instincts may be genetic, but our learned experiences and moral calculus override our instincts. populations acting off of instincts indeed will not be compatible, but I argue civilized populations who act on logic instead of instinct are more than capable of coexisting.
That isn't really an anti-racist perspective, in fact it's basically what most of us believe to varying degrees. Our ability to apply moral calculus and learned experiences is ALSO genetic. Below a certain threshold you cant participate in a society, and if you're demographic has a bell curve that puts critical mass of your population below said theshhold, your demographic is not compatible with civilization.
That's how it's always been really, this idea thay racism is based around "hate of differences" is new, and fucking nonsense. The old European thinkers looked at blacks and said "shit i can't do anything with that"
I'm not entirely sure about the "drown the dog in the airport bathroom" instinct.
THEY'RE DROWNING THE DAAWGIZ, THEY'RE DROWNING THE CATS...
Yeah, that probably is not a thing, otherwise they'd be doing it recreationally too.
If you think instincts are perfect prebaked answers to every specific situation then you're obviously going to be confused like that.
It's more like the outcome of the balance of "caring more about the innocent dog's entire life and existence vs my brief personal inconvenience" instincts.
For all we know she might have a history of being abusive. Obviously sub 90 IQ, but a sub 90 IQ is way more likely to just leave the dog at the airport and not think further than that.
GgggURggllle GGGUrRGlLe