I propose Alkon's Law:
Any person to claim benefit of a victimhood status (race, gender, etc.) automatically looses the argument.

Godwin's Law works reasonably well governing blog discussions; extending it to other subjects is warranted.

"I am offended," therefore you must be wrong--and by extension, I, the speaker, must be right.

But all too often that gets conflated to this: You hold that wrong opinion because you are an evil doer, and by extension I am just and virtuous.

"I'm offended" quickly ends any debate, turning it into an encounter session. We go from arguing two sides of an issue to one party apologizing for offending and attempting to explain itself to the other.

"You're a/n ...ist" immediately nullifies the opponent and invalidates his argument.

It's an effective tool of demagoguery but a sign of a weak opponent in a debate.

Reductio ad absurdum at its most effective.

Some of these folks need a steaming hot bowl of ramen noodle soup.

Soup For Sluts would be an appropriate brand, I think.

"The problem of concern here is not the critic who develops a sense of moral superiority that precludes evaluation of competing argument; it is, rather, the reader who takes the critic's words at face value, backs off, and thus cedes the point."

This is so true; and not just with those who say "I'm offended." There are those who are perpetually outraged over anything and everything. I try my best to ignore them; for being a white male, my very existence, is offensive to them.

However, it is others who are a large part of the problem as well. I find myself questioning every news source that states someone said "something offense" as if it is fact. But, they will not repeat the "offensive" statement; claiming that it is too offensive to repeat. But, how can I believe them that is offensive if they won't say what it was?

But, then, what do I know? I'm not a "wise Latina" sitting on the US Supreme Court.

When told "I find that offensive" or "I'm offended by that," I like to reply" I don't like peanut butter cookies and chocolate cookies in the same sitting. Surprisingly, the tastes don't complement one another." When the confused, WTF response comes, I explain the meaning of the term "non sequitur."
A teachable moment.

"how can I believe them that is offensive if they won't say what it was?"

Careful Charles. The news media is offended that you don't implicitly believe them. (Sadly this is true and there are news articles about it)

Good luck lecturing me, because I can't hear you. In fact, I can't even see you. You simply don't exist. So how's that dialog working for you?

Something might be missing here about "Plain Talk About Testing And Race".

See this article from Fred On Everything. Excerpts:

"Maybe the problem isn't whites. What if blacks don't succeed because they can't succeed? On every known test of intellectual capacity, blacks score about a standard deviation below whites. While they can't be blamed for this, as neither can whites, in a technoindustrial society those fifteen IQ points are a killer, absolute death. The difference is altogether enough to account for the inability of blacks to progress despite almost frantic efforts by whites to jump-start them."

"The zeitgeist notwithstanding, differences of intelligence exist between both individuals and groups. The differences are real. They've been carefully studied at great length by very smart people who are perfectly aware of the pitfalls of testing. For example, Jews score a standard deviation above other whites. That is, their advantage over other whites almost exactly equals the advantage of whites over blacks. In any physics laboratory with a statistically significant number of physicists, a (very) disproportionate number will be Jews. Why? Because physics requires a high level of analytical intelligence. They've got it.

Permit me to enunciate a principle, the recognition of which would transform sociology: Brains have consequences. This luminous thought explains why affirmative action doesn't work, why Head Start doesn't work, why efforts to compensate for the effects of slavery don't work, why black students perform badly in school systems controlled by blacks, why blacks stubbornly remain almost nonexistent in fields such as high-energy physics. It also seems to explain (the differences are smaller and the evidence scantier) why certain Asians are so prominent in the mathematical professions."

One more thing: you might be tempted to address everybody with black skin the same, because the newspeople do. I remind you that Africa is an IMMENSE continent, and there is far more diversity between its peoples than there is in Eorope and the Americas.

We must ignore that to be politically correct.

I think you've missed out on culture Rad. Far more significant than genetic heritage is cultural heritage for determining who will and who will not succeed both economically and scholastically.

I read a study comparing books in the home for African Americans and Anglos. The quartile with the most books in the African American community had fewer books on average than the lowest quartile of Anglos. This difference could have huge implications. It could be the difference between academic success and failure.

I don't know if the cause of the dearth of books is cultural, because of mobility, less time, more poverty, or a myriad of different reasons, but it gave me food for thought,

"Far more significant than genetic heritage is cultural heritage for determining who will and who will not succeed both economically and scholastically."

I didn't address the heredity/environment argument.

ARE there more books in the history of an Asian student? How does this explain the apparent advantage of Jews over other whites? Is native intelligence destroyed by the welfare "home", in which a baby is the means to a check and little else, being fed by the government as Mommy watches Oprah or whatever?

-----

It is Politically Correct to claim that everyone is equal, and sensible to apply the concept of equality before the law -- but there is absolutely no reason to assume any two people or races are equally competent. Judging by American literature, Americans are ignorant of the tremendous diversity among populations we all call "African", as well as the accomplishment of peoples all across the globe. They think the Bible was written in the Middle East and those teachings spread through Europe to the Americas, and that's all there is. Nobody knew anything before that. Ick.

I am not an expert on the subject but I heard a theory about Jewish success that made sense to me, so it stuck. The Jewish peoples have long encountered oppression and unfair laws against owning property or have had property taken away from them so they traditionally invest in education rather than in property. You are seeing the fruits of that investment. No one can take an education from you.

To Jen:

Reminds me of a well-known comic strip which featured, in one story (written either in the late 1980s or early 1990s), a Vietnamese student adopted as a baby by Jewish parents. She does very well in high school, to the resentment of her white classmates. One of them asks, sullenly, for the secret of her success.

"I just study."

"No way. I tried that once."

To Radwaste:

Fred Reed conveniently ignored that maybe, just maybe, African countries are suffering today, technologically and otherwise, because of everyone and everything that was stolen from them in the "post-slavery" reigns of terror by the French, British, Germans, and oh yes, some guy named King Leopold II of Belgium. (I can't believe how his name seldom gets mentioned on lists of political monsters from the last 150 years or so - never mind world history classes in high schools. I only HEARD of him in the last three years.)

To Jen: I seem to remember Deborah Tannen (author of "You Just Don't Understand") writing about literacy in poor black neighborhoods in her 1982 book "Spoken and Written Language: Exploring Orality and Literacy." IIRC, she said that maintaining communal ties - which took a lot of time and effort - was considered more important than spending one's spare time reading. Understandable.

you've missed out on culture Rad. Far more significant than genetic heritage is cultural heritage for determining who will and who will not succeed both economically and scholastically.

Posted by: Ben at October 22, 2015 1:40 PM

Even in Japan, you will find a number of Japanese emptying trash, digging ditches, and cleaning toilets.
They all on average probably have one standard deviation of IQ above their Anglo counterparts in the US,

While the majority of these laborers might be doing something else if their competition for white color jobs were the average European, or the average African, in Japan that hardly matters.

So, while *culture* allows many people to fulfill their potential if they have the drive and support to apply their natural intelligence in a fair competition, it isn't either the driver or the leveler, that you imagine it to be.

"Fred Reed conveniently ignored that maybe, just maybe, African countries are suffering today, technologically and otherwise, because of everyone and everything that was stolen from them in the "post-slavery" reigns of terror by the French, British, Germans, and oh yes, some guy named King Leopold II of Belgium. (I can't believe how his name seldom gets mentioned on lists of political monsters from the last 150 years or so - never mind world history classes in high schools. I only HEARD of him in the last three years.)"

This is one of the biggest liberal lies and excuses out there.

That "post slavery" reign of terror was a brief happy period where some economic justice was imposed by a little political and economic stability and the rule of law.

And I am not saying it was perfect, just better than what came before, or after..

Under native leadership post World War II all but a few of these countries have now regressed to the despotic hell holes they were before European colonialism.

Contrary to popular revisionist history Africa, South East Asia, and the Middle East, were not made up of a bunch of happy farmers and goat herders wandering around picking berries, and singing native folk songs.

They had neither the technology or the education to extract their own resources or engage in international trade.

They were brutal repressive poverty stricken dictatorships.

"British, Germans, and oh yes, some guy named King Leopold II of Belgium. (I can't believe how his name seldom gets mentioned on lists of political monsters from the last 150 years or so - never mind world history classes in high schools. I only HEARD of him in the last three years.)"

You probably took world history before it had been taken over by the anti white Grievence industry.

King Leopold II is a very safe target. White, dead, and not well known enough to arouse any kind of backlash defense.

And I am not saying it was perfect, just better than what came before, or after..
_________________________________

Got a source or two?

Leopold may not have had the same intentions as Hitler or Stalin (or been even as bad), but I don't recall H. or S. as being in the habit of allowing/pushing for the amputation of hands, feet, etc. of anyone who refused to act like a slave.

And you can't look at what came after decolonization without taking colonization into account.

Leopold may not have had the same intentions as Hitler or Stalin (or been even as bad), but I don't recall H. or S. as being in the habit of allowing/pushing for the amputation of hands, feet, etc. of anyone who refused to act like a slave.

And you can't look at what came after decolonization without taking colonization into account.

Posted by: lenona at October 23, 2015 2:11 PM

Amputation has been a comon punishment in Africa and Asia for thousands of years. Still is used extensively in the Arab slave cultures in the Middle East, and Africa. am not surprised that it was used by African and Arab overseers to keep other Africans in line.
Maybe you would like to read up on Leopold a little more, and compare him to someone like Idi Amin, who gets a pass from you liberal social justice warriors for being black.

If Idi or any other African despot does something, you, and they will find a way to blame a white guy somewhere up the chain regardless of whether he was directly involved or not.

Leopold wasn't Hitler or Stalin. Wasn't even Mao, Pol Pot or Idi. He is just an easy target, and European, unlikely to have any modern day defenders.

Perhaps if you learned a bit more about what pre colonial Africa was really like you would not be so quick to blame Colonialism for all the Ills of Africa, and Asia.

As I recall, it was the British who stopped Suttee in India.

Got a source or two?

Posted by: lenona at October 23, 2015 2:06 PM

Hundreds. How many would you actually have time to read?

Leopold is well-known among historians, for the worst excesses of colonial exploitation. That could explain the bloody failures of the post-colonial Congo region, but his domain was just one part of Africa. The other colonial powers were more enlightened, but their former colonies have been doing only marginally better than the Congo. Sudan and Ethiopia were under a bare semblance of British and Italian control for just a few years, and they are as fouled up as African nations that were subjugated and exploited by European nations for a century.

That doesn't prove that subjugation and exploitation wasn't a root cause of Africa's woes - maybe we're looking at the wrong subjugators and exploiters. Arabs played a role in sub-Saharan Africa for many centuries before European ships arrived. Most of the slaves in the transatlantic slave trade were purchased on the coast from Arab and mixed-blood slave traders, because white men were usually averse to trekking deep into the jungles - especially when they were planning to make war on the natives of those jungles. The Arabs could supply these slaves because they had extensive slave raiding and trading networks long before transatlantic shipping became possible - probably back before 1000 AD. I doubt the number of African slaves brought across the Sahara can be estimated with any accuracy, but it must far exceed the number sold to the transatlantic trade. And these slave traders not only kidnapped men and women, the also corrupted the native governments. Village chiefs learned to get rid of troublemakers and rivals, and get paid for them. Tribal kings who opposed the slave trade would both lose revenue and possibly be overthrown by their enemies with the help of foreign military advisors and weapons.

The closest thing to a success story in sub-Saharan Africa seems to be the nation that was colonized by Europeans the longest, subject to the most extreme racial discrimination even after colonialism had ended elsewhere, and now has the largest white population - South Africa. It's also the furthest from the Arab Muslim countries of North Africa.

"So, while *culture* allows many people to fulfill their potential if they have the drive and support to apply their natural intelligence in a fair competition, it isn't either the driver or the leveler, that you imagine it to be."

I didn't call it a leveler Isab. If anything I called it a differentiator. When there is a common culture (aka environment or nurture) then inherent differences become dominant (aka nature). When there are stark cultural differences it is easy to swamp genetic differences. It would be hard to honestly argue that the US african american culture is anything but anti-intellectual. For a group that is opposed to education to have members that do poorly educationally should be no shock.

Lenona,

Leopold was over 100 years ago. The statue of limitation on those offenses has long since run out. I know you think white men are the debil but enough with the racism.

And you can't look at what came after decolonization without taking colonization into account.

Why not, you are refusing to take into account what preceded colonization

It would be hard to honestly argue that the US african american culture is anything but anti-intellectual. For a group that is opposed to education to have members that do poorly educationally should be no shock.

Posted by: Ben at October 23, 2015 7:14 PM

Of course it is anti intellectual. But there is a chicken and egg thing going on here. Do anti intellectual culture groups not value education because they don't do well at it or do they do poorly at it because they don't value it?

You take black kids, and raise them in white middle class environments, that one standard deviation average IQ gap does not disappear, nor does it disappear in Americanized Asians, or secular American Jews.

Biology isn't destiny, but it can't be erased with a little hard work, and social tinkering.

Leopold was over 100 years ago. The statue of limitation on those offenses has long since run out.

Posted by: Ben at October 23, 2015 7:17 PM

Er, what's THAT supposed to mean? Sure, all the people involved are long dead, but if they weren't, why SHOULD there be a statute of limitations on the crime of amputation? (It reminds me in a way of Gary Alan Irving, the man who was convicted in 1978 of raping three young girls (strangers) but escaped immediately after the conviction and was caught only after 35 years, in Maine. Some people actually had the ignorance and the gall to say that he shouldn't have to go to jail because of "the statute of limitations." Somehow, I suspect they'd feel the same way even if someone explained the law to them. Not to mention his lawyer, who seemed to think it would help his client when he said “he has no recollection of ever assaulting anyone.”)

And by 2050, WWII and the Holocaust will be more than 100 years ago - would that be ANY reason for schoolkids not to be taught about them and the names of the alleged humans responsible for it? Do we not at least know the NAMES of people like Caligula, Ghengis Khan, etc., despite their being so old?

In all fairness, here's what someone else said (a liberal):

"I certainly don't want to be seen as defending Leopold, but he actually wasn't much different from his contemporaries. I've read Hochschild's book (King Leopold's Ghost), and it is a great book in so many ways. The first 17 chapters of the book lay out the case against Leopold, but then the last 2 chapters make it clear that what Belgium did wasn't any worse than what other countries did - and, in fact, that France was more brutal in Africa than Belgium was. And much the same can be said of Germany and the UK.

"It seems to me that Leopold's main problem was that he got caught. And the reason he got caught is that one particular guy (E. D. Morel) made it his life's work to get him. And, given that Morel was British and Protestant, it could well be the case that he (Morel) did it out of rivalry and spite against a Catholic foreigner. I'm not saying that Morel was a bad guy, quite the opposite in fact, but the fact remains that if Morel hadn't existed, Leopold would probably have gotten away with it..."

"Er, what's THAT supposed to mean?"

So much time has passed it is completely irrelevant.

I hear some guy named Cain murdered his brother and is still alive today as a vampire. Who smacked who in the head with a rock 2000 years ago doesn't affect things today. What Leopold did over 100 years ago has no significant effect on contemporary governance in Africa.

To Isab: How about some books written in THIS century, by people who don't have extremist or wacky reputations?

To Ben: Looks like you didn't read my previous post. At any rate, whether or not contemporary governments are still being affected by the distant past, I'd love to know how we can be so sure that society itself isn't still affected.

Fine Lenona, you win. Leopold was a magical once in a 1000 years man who uniquely determined the fate of millions of Africans. He is just so much more significant than anyone that came before or after him nothing can ever erase the black mark he put on history.

And yes I read your post. It was without significance or direction.