Reading this thread from a progressive-atheist on race, I want to give an extended take. Its author thinks this is the height of rationality, yet he clearly demonstrates the existence of a thought terminating method, so cynical, it puts any young earth creationist to shame. 1/ https://twitter.com/reveralife/status/1313171615019008000

One warning, since this indeed is on the dreaded subject of "race", I do have a chance to get myself banned by speaking on it. Please fasten your seat-belts and keep all arms and hands in the vehicle. I will try to stay on track. 2/

In summary, the author's logic goes as follows: Given we observe manifest differences in racial performance, there are only 3(4) main explanations.
A. Biology (read"RR")
B. Culture (read"CD")
C. Systematic Racism (read "SR")
D. mix of above (read"M") /3

A hard question, but the prog thinks "SR" is the only choice. Not only is this absolute. Dissidents who entertain RR, or conservatives who entertain CD are "white supremacist racists" which means they are by definition BAD people. It's revealing how they get here. 4/

From the beginning, RR and M are flat out "racist" and therefore out of consideration. "Racist" is a moral proposition (a problem we will get into later), and for almost all progressives the moral odiousness of racism will prohibit this from even being entertained. 5/

Sometimes progressives imply that there is another conversation to have on whether RR or M are actually TRUE. This is bullshit. Progressives have been canceling scientists and thinkers for speculating about RR. "Racism!" isn't the beginning of a conversation, it's the end. 6/

Ok, but we still have CD to consider right? Maybe. Have we considered the circumstances led to the cultural differences? And what circumstances led to those? We keep on pulling the thread until we hit RR (you're a RACIST!) or something we can call SR. 7/

This trick is done fast, but progressives exclude out of hand the existence of DEEP cultural difference even while we observe these emerging independent of race (e.g. Korea). You can see the hat trick here: 8/

Having excluded RR and M and reducing CD to SR or RR, the only remaining option is SR! So QED racists!!! A brilliant proof? Actually an ideological trap. Let's walk through this slowly. 9/

First problem, predictably is the equivocation on "racism". "Racism" is a moral proposition. That's how most people use it. That's how the left uses it. As such, moral propositions should concern either GOOD action or aesthetic proscription (it's "should" rather than "is"). 10/

Creating moral propositions around natural statements of fact (true or not) is a BIG no no. It means there could be "hate facts" or states of the universe where we condemn reality for being evil for not conforming to our wishes about how things SHOULD be. 11/

For example, if we say that it is immoral to believe in the existence of a purple cows. We have created a situation where believing the truth can be evil. Sure, I don't see any purple cows now, but somewhere on the planet ZONGO there might be a purple cow. 12/

Furthermore, the existence of moral standard will actively prevent my discovery of the purple cow. Explorers who come back from planet ZONGO can be dismissed as liars when they report purple cows because they are EVIL! (They believe in purple cows!) 13/

Now, we partially can mitigate the destructiveness of descriptive moral propositions by either making them entirely abstract (belief in platonic forms) or manifestly demonstrably true (objects fall to the earth). But are either of these properties true for RR? 14/

Is RR impossible? Is there some principle that excludes it from being true absolutely? Is there even overwhelming evidence that it is NOT true? My conclusion after years of looking for this is "No". RR can safely be described as "open" or "unknown" 15/

We know that genetic differences in observable groups exist. Certainly in skin melanin content. Maybe in average height. Probably in disease susceptibility. Do we understand the extent of this difference? No. Do we see persistent behavioral differences? Yes. 16/

Now, this certainly doesn't make RR true. It just makes it possible. It makes RR an open question. You can talk about "standards of evidence", and I will agree with you! But again this just makes RR an OPEN question, not something manifestly false. 17/

So what happens when we introduce a moral proposition with censure to an open scientific question? Nothing good. We have the same problem as with the explorer reporting on purple cows from the planet ZONGO. The morality gates the truth. 18/

"But we don't do that" cries the left. Oh really? So you wouldn't, for instance, publicly humiliate and cancel the most famous geneticist of the 20th century for speculating on this question? Or physical attack a journalist for writing about? The editors who published it? 19/

All the while, the left wants to congratulate itself for winning this "debate" bc it can extract platitudes against "racism" (which is equivalent to RR in their minds) from biologists when they cancel people who don't comply. This doesn't work for me. 20/

And of course the great irony, it's just this kind of ideological gate that progressive atheists constantly bemoan when they talk about Galileo (centuries ago). Unsurprisingly its always progressive atheists who guard against" hate facts". 21/

Ok, but let's move to the next stage. The exclusion of deep cultural differences (or CD in our terminology), from explaining any persistent behavior in between groups. This is less sexy, but the claim is even more insane. 22/

First, as before, we observe DEEP cultural differences literally emerging in places like Korea. Different political orders, different constraints, different random elements, create (shock) DIFFERENT CULTURE. These differences cannot just be chalked up to "RACISM!". 23/

I could go on about the heaps of anthropological evidence for this. I could go on about how this view of culture is infantile and is the essence of BUGMEN where all cultural features are either oppression or consumer choices. However,I don't think I need to take these routes. 24/

This is because progressives will embrace CD ANYTIME a non-white group outperforms gentile whites. What about Asians (you know that SMALL ethic category)? What about the <redacted>? Why are they outperforming whites? Progressive answer is not SR, it's CD, ALWAYS. 25/

I know for <redacted> that their over-achievement is regularly commented on in their community. They are rightfully proud of this. CD is almost always the explanation. Certainly SR against gentiles is NEVER entertained. 26/

But I say "almost always" because I KNOW that behind closed doors, the possibility of an RR that benefits <redacted> IS discussed openly. This conversation is usually non-bigoted, and I appreciate that. 27/

What I DON'T appreciate is the hypocrisy. I know progressives don't reduce CD to SR in all circumstances. I can see situations every day where they DON'T! 28/

At any rate, this demonstrates our original PROOF of systematic racism to be little more than a constructed mental cage. Each side its hemmed in, not by logic, but by moral equivocations, double standards, and errors in fact. 29/

I really wish we could get beyond this, but as always with progressive atheists. I am not optimistic. 30/30

@Friended4Ever @reveralife