tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486244714643027014.post1548543675942495684..comments2024-03-24T23:57:28.687-07:00Comments on Undercover Black Man: Auster gets a megaphone from David HorowitzUndercover Black Manhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08704721024820668555noreply@blogger.comBlogger34125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486244714643027014.post-8720456951351833612007-05-11T08:44:00.000-07:002007-05-11T08:44:00.000-07:00For all concerned, I have posted the complete text...For all concerned, I have posted the complete text of my May 2006 letter to David Horowitz regarding Lawrence Auster’s oft-expressed racial animus. It is <A HREF="http://web.mac.com/undercoverblackman/iWeb/Site/Blog/12DF4786-2316-4D3D-A81C-E3740DAF17F5.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>, on my newly launched “text annex.”<BR/><BR/>Now <EM>this</EM> blog can get return to the fun stuff.Undercover Black Manhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08704721024820668555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486244714643027014.post-44974110185322354102007-05-08T11:50:00.000-07:002007-05-08T11:50:00.000-07:00I just have one question: Who IS THAT BLACK MAN??...I just have one question:<BR/> Who IS THAT BLACK MAN???<BR/>WOWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486244714643027014.post-52398165232744442532007-05-08T11:38:00.000-07:002007-05-08T11:38:00.000-07:00David, I first heard "The who in the what now?" on...David, I first heard "The who in the what now?" on "The Simpsons" (Homer said it, natch).<BR/><BR/>I knew something was off about those stats. So the questions I raised about them (albeit sarcastically) in other thread were legit. Of course Auster won't admit he was wrong to fan the flames of racism based on his misreading of the <I>survey</I>. What a dick!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486244714643027014.post-44429056628236697462007-05-08T08:52:00.000-07:002007-05-08T08:52:00.000-07:00I understand that any and all topics should, in th...I understand that any and all topics should, in theory, be available for honest academic inquiry. However, we don't live in a bell jar, and the actual subjects investigated tell as much about us as the conclusions reached. It would be of cultural import to know if Jews really do love money, etc, etc. - but this requires the first condition: honest academic inquiry. I don't believe that that condition has been, or is likely to be met. In the meantime, it functions in reverse - studies done to prove hypotheses. Though my anecdotal evidence would largely support it, for instance, I don't really need a study using these parameters to prove definitively if Canadians really do have an extra 'hockey bone' or not - clearly, stats would show that they do.pwryehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03943415808975588988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486244714643027014.post-59792461724660044182007-05-07T23:37:00.000-07:002007-05-07T23:37:00.000-07:00Anon, you say that “it’s unfair of you to accuse [...Anon, you say that “it’s unfair of you to accuse [Auster] of writing in bad faith” <EM>and</EM> that “Auster’s comments are certainly racist…”<BR/><BR/>Much as I don’t like to feed trolls, I must retort thuswise, for the sake of the young kids reading:<BR/><BR/>1. Do you know what “bad faith” means?<BR/><BR/>2. Do you know what “racism” means?<BR/><BR/>“Bad faith” means that Lawrence Auster did not seize upon, and then broadcast, statistics about interracial rape in a spirit of fair-minded truth-seeking. He had a bias.<BR/><BR/>“Racism” is when one’s biases – in this case, anti-black bigotry – are allowed to supersede one’s ability to reason.<BR/><BR/>Auster revealed the depth of his bad faith on his blog yesterday, after a few of his educated readers pointed out that the source of his data – The National Crime Victimization Survey – is a <EM>survey</EM>… that Justice Department statisticians have made <EM>projections</EM> and <EM>extrapolations</EM>.<BR/><BR/>So the figures cited by Auster – such as 100 white women a day raped by black men – aren’t hard numbers based on actual reported crimes, but <EM>estimates</EM> based on questionnaires sent to a sampling of random Americans. (Auster flat-out declared in his <A HREF="http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=28129" REL="nofollow">FrontPage article</A>: “The Department of Justice statistics refer, of course, to verified reports.”)<BR/><BR/>Auster benignly titled yesterday’s blog post: <A HREF="http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/007759.html" REL="nofollow">“New Perspectives on the DOJ Data.”</A><BR/><BR/>New perspectives indeed.<BR/><BR/>When Auster stated in his essay that “there were under 10 incidents nationally” of white-on-black rape in 2005, that was just ridiculously wrong. There were fewer than 10 incidents among the <EM>survey sample</EM> of 67,000 people; a reliable statistical projection couldn’t be made based on that, so it shows up in the results table as “0.0 percent.”<BR/><BR/>As one of Auster’s sympathetic commenters tried to explain: “We have to be careful… that our facts are actually, you know, factual. … While the ratios are significant and tell us something important, that point is going to get lost and our credibility will be significantly damaged if we make claims to the effect that not a single rape by a white man against a black woman took place in this country last year…”<BR/><BR/>But how did Auster react to these “new perspectives”? Does he now regret having made such a sweeping and incendiary declamation as “white women in this country are being targeted by black rapists”… based on statistics he <EM>didn’t even know how to read?</EM><BR/><BR/>No. He blames the Justice Department. “I’ve gone back to the document in the National Crime Victimization Survey,” Auster wrote. “There is no way for the reader to know… that these figures are projections…”<BR/><BR/>So, you see, Auster did <EM>nothing wrong</EM>. It <EM>wasn’t his fault</EM>. “[C]learly,” he says, “the document should have been more clear in explaining that the ‘less then ten,’ on which the 0.0 percent figure is based, results from the fact that this is a survey, not hard numbers.”<BR/><BR/>This would be funny. If it weren’t so damn sad.Undercover Black Manhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08704721024820668555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486244714643027014.post-90944577482353284412007-05-07T22:01:00.000-07:002007-05-07T22:01:00.000-07:00^ Tina Fey?^ Tina Fey?Undercover Black Manhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08704721024820668555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486244714643027014.post-90732225328639465262007-05-07T21:36:00.000-07:002007-05-07T21:36:00.000-07:00The who in the what now?Oooo Dez, where's that fro...<EM>The who in the what now?</EM><BR/><BR/>Oooo Dez, where's that from?? It's right on the tip of my memory, but I can't fetch it...<BR/><BR/>But I <EM>will</EM> be adding that line to my snark arsenal.Undercover Black Manhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08704721024820668555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486244714643027014.post-91155208377174293292007-05-07T21:23:00.000-07:002007-05-07T21:23:00.000-07:00So the answer to racism is to be more racist than ...So the answer to racism is to be more racist than the person you're arguing against? The who in the what now?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486244714643027014.post-53838046006242463342007-05-07T20:48:00.000-07:002007-05-07T20:48:00.000-07:00Having read Auster's article, I think it's unfair ...Having read Auster's article, I think it's unfair of you to accuse him of writing in bad faith. He clearly mentions rapes carried out by white males against white females and by black males against black females. The reason for focusing on black-on-white versus white-on-black rape is that it is done in the context of the aftermath of the Duke Lacrosse rape allegations, during which the notion was put forward by liberal commentators that sexual assault of black women by white males was common place and made the incident some kind of microcosm of racial politics and oppression. In that context it is perfectly legitimate to point out that such a view does not correspond to the reality.<BR/><BR/>Why is it that white males can be slurred and impugned, as they were during the Duke Lacrosse case (not just those specific white males, but white males in general), but when we defend ourselves from slander by showing that these collective generalisations are not only untrue, BUT THAT THE REVERSE IS THE CASE, we are painted as the racial aggressors? Auster's comments are certainly racist, but I think that's legitimate when done in self-defence against slander against white males. Turnabout is fair play after all.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486244714643027014.post-27534366528990156482007-05-07T15:09:00.000-07:002007-05-07T15:09:00.000-07:00Greetings, Pwrye. Welcome, and thanks for the comm...Greetings, Pwrye. Welcome, and thanks for the comment.<BR/><BR/>I absolutely agree that Lawrence Auster is on a neverending cherry-picking expedition for "evidence" to support his pre-set conclusions. On race matters he is driven, I believe, by a bigoted ideology. <BR/><BR/>But when you question whether race differences in intelligence constitute "a valuable academic research topic"... well, that's tricky. And I'd urge you not to give in to your own political pre-sets.<BR/><BR/>Theoretically, if it could be proven -- as a matter of science -- that black people as a class are less "intelligent" than whites as a class (and that both groups are less "intelligent" than East Asians) -- this would have public-policy consequences.<BR/><BR/>A big one, right off the bat, would be college admissions. Suppose that the incoming freshman class at Stanford is only 2 percent black. The liberal/egalitarian orthodoxy says this must be due to "racism," and that blacks are entitled to be judged by a different set of academic standards than whites in order to boost their presence on campus.<BR/><BR/>If racial differences in the manner of mental performance we label "intelligence" were proven, then perhaps <EM>that's</EM> why only 2 percent of Stanford's freshman class is black. Because that's how many black applicants were <EM>qualified</EM> to get in.<BR/><BR/>In other words, there would be no reason to suppose that 12 percent of Stanford's freshman class ought to be black merely because 12 percent of the U.S. population is black.<BR/><BR/>This is a minefield, I realize. But just because unreconstructed bigots are hung up on the topic of race differences in intelligence... that doesn't mean there aren't indeed race differences in intelligence.<BR/><BR/>I do not believe that researchers should be bullied and ostracized for daring to study a subject which does have real-world policy implications.Undercover Black Manhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08704721024820668555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486244714643027014.post-79777419501218884212007-05-07T14:03:00.000-07:002007-05-07T14:03:00.000-07:00"do you think that it is wrong to investigate the ..."do you think that it is wrong to investigate the existence of racial differences in IQ?"<BR/><BR/>I suppose not, were it for some reason a valuable academic research topic. However, I have never, ever, ever seen anything of the sort that didn't have an obvious a priori conclusion. As we see in Auster's work, once you get past the ol' "oh, I'm just intellectually curious" intro, we know the 'scientific' conclusions he'll reach long before he reaches them. Do you really suppose it was simply a keen mind, open to possiblitiy, that underwent whatever 'evidence' it is that he referenced? Going back to the quoted question, sure it's a valid question, and one that has been discussed many times. However, I personally would like to know why white people and their cultures have killed far more than any others in the last centuries: is it a genetic weakness? An 'evil' gene? The way in which the debate is framed, and the 'honest, tough questions' asked are every bit as important as the answers themselves.pwryehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03943415808975588988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486244714643027014.post-73462655458014978792007-05-07T10:55:00.000-07:002007-05-07T10:55:00.000-07:00Frankly, Gould’s thinking on evolutionary biology ...<I>Frankly, Gould’s thinking on evolutionary biology and evolutionary psychology is extremely suspect, especially in light of the work of Edward O. Wilson, Stephen Pinker, Daniel Dennett, and Richard Dawkins (not exactly rabid fundamentalist conservatives).</I><BR/><BR/>Some (perhaps all) of whom had an axe to grind with Gould, making their own criticisms "extremely suspect." Everyone's got their own agenda. Funny how that works.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486244714643027014.post-51163425107421724362007-05-07T10:08:00.000-07:002007-05-07T10:08:00.000-07:00Ouch. What's painful is that there's still an aud...Ouch. What's painful is that there's still an audience for such drivel. "White women in this country are being <B>targeted</B> by black rapists" (emphasis mine). As with his writings on Cho, Auster is wallowing in paranoia.Batocchiohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02193752396025012825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486244714643027014.post-54581254872189781482007-05-07T09:44:00.000-07:002007-05-07T09:44:00.000-07:00Hot dog. Well done!Hot dog. Well done!Binghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09911928552839958713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486244714643027014.post-18948681682162392752007-05-07T08:40:00.000-07:002007-05-07T08:40:00.000-07:00"over one hundred white women are raped or sexuall..."over one hundred white women are raped or sexually assaulted by a black man.”<BR/><BR/>Boy, whoever he is, that guy sure gets around!Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15557161314670215279noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486244714643027014.post-6950376426273995672007-05-06T22:31:00.000-07:002007-05-06T22:31:00.000-07:00CB: No apologies necessary. I like your writing, a...CB: No apologies necessary. I like your writing, and I like how you think. I hope to keep you interested in my blog.<BR/><BR/>I can relate to your feelings while delving into IQ. I'll say that "The Bell Curve," when that came out in the '90s, and all the hubbub around it... that's actually what began my disenchantment with liberal/egalitarian orthodoxy.<BR/><BR/>I forget which magazine ran an issue devoted to rebuttals on "The Bell Curve"... but I read those rebuttals, and they seemed less persuasive to me than "The Bell Curve" itself. And I'm thinking, <EM>If this is the best that the smart liberals can say against this book, they're in trouble.</EM><BR/><BR/>So my intellectual curiosity was aroused on two tracks: an interest in psychometric research itself; and an awareness of the tactics used by leftist scholars and media types to discredit "The Bell Curve" and silence its supporters.<BR/><BR/>This isn't the full response, CB. Still working on that. Put just wanted to reply to your comment tonight.Undercover Black Manhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08704721024820668555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486244714643027014.post-12595565498623385662007-05-06T11:56:00.000-07:002007-05-06T11:56:00.000-07:00UBM, I appreciate your willingness to respond to “...UBM, I appreciate your willingness to respond to “the taboo of taboos,” as you so rightly put it. I know well-enough how uncomfortable people are with the topic of race and IQ to not be surprised by the ad hominem attacks from certain other posters. I purposely used the same moniker and mentioned that I’d commented on Amren so that you could ascertain my <I>bona fides</I> if you were so inclined. I’m glad you did.<BR/><BR/>For the record, I became interested in the subject of IQ and group differences therein almost by accident. Let me explain. I have been the custodian of my two younger brothers since our mother’s death five years ago. The younger child has been tested and classified as “gifted”; the older boy, unfortunately, is classified as mentally retarded and is diagnosed with PDD-NOS (an autism spectrum disorder). I began investigating resources for gifted children, about how best to cultivate a child’s intellect and instill a lifetime love of learning and reading. At the same time, I also searched for information about the degree to which IQ is fixed; I wondered whether there existed any scientific literature on the subject of increasing an individual’s IQ or at least maximizing a person’s innate intelligence. (I wanted to give my developmentally disabled brother a chance at a fuller, more self-sufficient life if it was at all possible.) Well, if you do a few Google or Lexis Nexis searches regarding IQ, it doesn’t take long before you run headlong into the debates on racial differences in IQ. <BR/><BR/>Like the anonymous poster above, I, too, long assumed that the credibility (or lack thereof) of intelligence testing (particularly the study of IQ differences between racial and ethnic groups) had been settled conclusively by SJ Gould in <I>The Mismeasure of Man</I>. I was stunned to find that, among mainstream psychologists and psychometricians, it was Gould who was considered the charlatan. The evidence indicated that Gould engaged in willful obfuscation, knowing full well that even the literate readers of high brow journals, such as the <I>NY Review of Books</I> and the <I>NY Times</I>, would be unfamiliar with the latest work in the field of psychological testing. Frankly, Gould’s thinking on evolutionary biology and evolutionary psychology is extremely suspect, especially in light of the work of Edward O. Wilson, Stephen Pinker, Daniel Dennett, and Richard Dawkins (not exactly rabid fundamentalist conservatives). To my mind, when someone trots out <I>The Mismeasure of Man</I> to refute the premises of intelligence testing and the existence of “g,” it’s the equivalent of proponents of “intelligent design” pointing to Michael Behe’s <I>Darwin’s Black Box</I> to argue against evolution. <BR/><BR/>I’ll close by saying that I’m equally interested in how people (no matter what side of the political spectrum they fall on) engage in intellectual discourse, rather than just the substance of their arguments. It’s funny, but the posters on conservative racialist sites (such as Amren) and the posters on liberal blogs often argue using the same tactics. They resort to name-calling, refuse to address the substance of a person’s argument, and hold tenaciously onto their belief in certain sacred cows in spite of any evidence to the contrary. (UBM gave up on posting on Amren because of this predilection among some commenters.) David Horowitz is a prime example; even though he switched ideological teams, his absolute certainty in his own righteousness and infallibility remains the same.<BR/><BR/>P.S.: Sorry for the length of my two posts. I won’t make it a habit. I generally like to sit back and just read what others have written. But, I thought I should explain myself.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486244714643027014.post-23807784818012641252007-05-05T23:27:00.000-07:002007-05-05T23:27:00.000-07:00You told me you were gonna break out the Monty Pyt...<I>You told me you were gonna break out the Monty Python at some point, didn't cha, Dez? ;^) </I><BR/><BR/>I'm a woman of my word :-D<BR/><BR/>I broke it out in another thread and no one seems to have caught it, judging from the serious responses I got, heh.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486244714643027014.post-5808616141565478262007-05-05T22:05:00.000-07:002007-05-05T22:05:00.000-07:00Alma, I have to say, you're wrong about Curious By...Alma, I have to say, you're wrong about Curious Bystander. She's not a troll. She's a black woman who seems to be sincerely drawn to the most taboo subjects in America's racial discourse (judging by my quick refresher on some of her American Renaissance comments).<BR/><BR/>I intend to respond to her fully... but it's going to take time, because she's brought up the taboo of taboos, and I want to deal with it.Undercover Black Manhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08704721024820668555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486244714643027014.post-84530332643624627422007-05-05T21:31:00.000-07:002007-05-05T21:31:00.000-07:00Sigh. A prolix concern troll. The effusive compl...Sigh. A prolix concern troll. The effusive compliment. Always find[s] it interesting to watch “intellectuals” wrestle with ideas. (Spoken in a deep voice, with a slight reverb, from Olympian heights). Hee - those li'l intellectuals wrasslin'. <BR/><BR/>And then the "we're juss sayin' whut y'all are thinkin'" crap.<BR/><BR/>Oh, and I loved the "exactly equal in every way" strawman the troll slips in this dog's breakfast of a post. I picture the troll flapping his hands and rolling his eyes like Jack Benny. <BR/><BR/>s.o.l., you handled it great, thank you.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04943576245280178513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486244714643027014.post-70458953055627239772007-05-05T19:07:00.000-07:002007-05-05T19:07:00.000-07:00^ You told me you were gonna break out the Monty P...^ You told me you were gonna break out the Monty Python at some point, didn't cha, Dez? ;^)Undercover Black Manhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08704721024820668555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486244714643027014.post-15994561748216807992007-05-05T17:18:00.000-07:002007-05-05T17:18:00.000-07:00Eh, Rene Descartes was a drunken fart who said, "I...Eh, Rene Descartes was a drunken fart who said, "I drink; therefore, I am"!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486244714643027014.post-30185698858367693132007-05-05T13:24:00.000-07:002007-05-05T13:24:00.000-07:00From Auster's essay on black intelligence vs. whit...From Auster's essay on black intelligence vs. white intelligence:<BR/><BR/><I>The only time when there was a relatively high quality black leadership in America was when America was under the influence of a white bourgeois Christian elite who set decent standards for the whole society including whites and blacks. Black communities and churches (just like white ethnic minority communities) tended to replicate the authoritative moral standards of the larger society. Thus the upright black leaders of the mid-twentieth century were themselves indirect products of a virtuous white majority culture. But as blacks have thrown off white influence and cultural standards (and as whites have cast off their own standards), black public society, as everyone is painfully aware, has become radically cruder and less ethical.</I><BR/><BR/>What magical time was this? Is Auster referring to <A HREF="http://www.cynical-c.com/archives/003560.html" REL="nofollow">this</A> Golden Age of bourgeois white morality?<BR/><BR/>The man has rocks in his head. If that is clean, logical thinking, I'm Rene Descartes.The Sirenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13587505433284584391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486244714643027014.post-33194463102477743562007-05-05T11:10:00.000-07:002007-05-05T11:10:00.000-07:00What a highly polished turd from Curious Bystander...What a highly polished turd from Curious Bystander. CB, start with SJ Gould's _Mismeasure of Man_ if you want to get a sense of why the premises of race science are bogus. Surrounding this crap with a lot of intellectual words , at repetitive length, and pulling the passive-aggressive bit that you're not saying that black folks are inferior but you think their possible inferiority ought to be discussed more thoughtfully -- these are the dodges of the educated bigot.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486244714643027014.post-79305743913759585212007-05-05T09:29:00.000-07:002007-05-05T09:29:00.000-07:00^ Zing!^ <EM>Zing!</EM>Undercover Black Manhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08704721024820668555noreply@blogger.com