@ R. Spencer, I don’t think any subject should be taboo.  However, some subjects don’t lead anywhere.  For example, the race/IQ discussion.  Reagrdless of whether there is or isn’t a correlation (which hasn’t been established either way, at least to my mind) shouldn’t effect how people deal with other people.  If it does, that’s bad, because people are making assumptions about indiivduals based on the characteristics of that group.

If the government starts favoring one race or group over another,because of those [perceived] that’s facism.

Therefore, unless one is willing to tolerate a facist state, discussion of that subject is pointless.

@ RS, My bad.  the word “chracterictics” should follow “[perceived]”

Anyone who thinks this knowledge is being suppressed demonstrates their wholesale ignorance.  Again, this is the stuff of intro to psychology courses.

It is sad indeed that so-called conservatives are supporting what in effect is a state-sponsored egalitarianism, beyond criticism - so beyond criticism, they believe, that if one does criticize this new religion of egalitarianism then he should be silenced.  (Isn’t it this very sort of ideological egalitarianism that gave rise to National Review, Buckley, Kirk, et al., in the 1950s?) As I said on the other thread, those brave souls who oppose political correctness should be applauded, not condemned by so-called conservatives using the shibboleths of the post-Marxist Left.

“However, some subjects don’t lead anywhere.  For example, the race/IQ discussion.”

I can’t agree with this at all.  If - as I believe science has demonstrated, in the face of furious denunciation from PC forces - blacks and certain other minorities display overall IQ levels lower than those of whites and northeast Asians, is this not an extremely relevant defense to claims that disparities in their representation in certain professions and academic disciplines are caused by intentional discrimination?  Should this point not be front and center in the entire affirmative action debate?

It may be true that, given that the results of these studies are largely considered taboo right now, attempts to debate this point likely won’t “lead anywhere” for now, at least in mainstream media circles.  But to bury the matter on this basis, it seems to me, is precisely the sort of knowing suppression of truth that we can never tolerate.

@ MA Roberts, I can’t tell if you agree or disagree with Richard.

How do you define “Egalilitarianism”?  If you use a traditional definiton, I.e. “Egalitarianism (derived from the French word égal, meaning equal) is a political doctrine that holds that all people should be treated as equals from birth. Generally it applies to being held equal under the law and society at large”, then no conservative could help but be an egalitarian.

Individuals should be treated as individuals, for good or ill, based upon their actions--not their race, class or religion.

@ C. Lindbergh, See my post to MA Roberts.  Each individual should stand or fall on his opwn merits.  That applies to affrmative action as well.  Affirmative action is heading out the door to the dustbin of history.  Why?  Because hasn’t worked.

I meant egalitarianism in the ideological sense, in the sense it has been used for the past 200+ years; I, thus, agree with Richard.

Your distinctions are sensible.  There is a world of difference between (a) knowledge that is, in essence, the fruit of a terrible crime and (b) timely facts worthy of suppression as matters of the common good, such as matters of national security.  But scientific and other insights about the human conditions should not be suppressed becasue they might lead to hurt feelings, as Dreher and Stegall suggest

Individuals with low IQs don’t need scientists to tell them about the challenges they face; life is something of an IQ test.  Numerous reminders from wages to brushes with the law to deep boredom with school tell low IQ students (and their higher IQ teachers and peers) what is afoot.

The great conceit of the “noble lie” promoters is that we won’t know these things if somehow their academic study is effectively suppressed.  This is highly unlikely.  High IQ is rewarded economically.  Intelligence is frequently praised as one of the top attractive qualities in a potential mate.  Human beings everywhere have noticed, measured, and ranked one another on the basis of their intelligence.

As Steve Sailer has noted, suppression of politically incorrect facts will lead merely to them being spoken about, perhaps only in hushed whispers, rather than being studied and *written* about in a rigorous way amenable to correction.

It’s not news that some people are smarter than others.  It’s not news that many negative traits go along with stupidity.  The forceful denial of reality by educated elites, however, is proof that otherwise smart people can make themselves stupid by donning the blinders of ideology, in this case, the dominant liberal ideology of equality.

TODAY we do amniocentesis to determine if a baby MIGHT be born with a lower IQ or other problems and kill them before they can be born.  That is knowledge.  And genetics.  And IQ.

A MA Roberts, So, yes or no, do you believe that all people should be treated equally at birth?

McBrown, your pseudointellectual question suffers from a want of clarity.  Does it mean, for instance, I should not regard my own children more highly than a stranger’s?  Am I allowed at least to bring them home with me, into a large home that I’ve bought through my own efforts, even though it’s quite unequal to some other home someone else’s child will be brought to?

Equality of opportunity is almost as silly as equality of result. We’re born unequal, our families are unequal, our environments, schools, geographic location, and so much else is unequal.  Perhaps instead of worrying about the mythic goal of equality, we can just try to keep our side of the street clean, do our best by our families and communities, and quit the self-flagellation, shall we?  That strikes me as pretty pragmatic, which is what you are supposedly all about when you’re not looking for dragons to slay in the name of equality.

It is entirely impossible to treat most people as individuals. People treat each other differently based on race, class, religion, gender etc. You will never get to know most of the world as individuals nor would you really want to because you have some information about them. We all come in with certain assumptions about the different sexes/genders and carry with us that information even when we know some information about the other sex. Even Charles Murray has admitted to John Derbyshire that it is impossible to treat everyone as individuals in a Bob Taft Club event. Sometimes you may be wrong in terms of judging someone wrongly based on group characteristics, but it has served me well and it is a necessity that we all in fact operate on whether we admit or not. To the degree, many people do not operate on certain assumptions is where many racial egalitarian, non-judgmental often get mistreated, hurt etc.

@ C Roach, There you go again.  What makes my “yes” or “no” question “pseudointellectual”?  Particularly when juxtaposed with your drivel?

That’s your game isn’t it?  Come up with a derogatory label for something, or someone, and then make people argue with you about the label you’ve assigned, as opposed to the issue which [had been] at hand.  I suspect that’s because you’re weak “all hat and no cattle” as my dad used to say.

Sorry, I don’t play in sand boxes.  I grew out of it long ago.

Manifestly, my question was whether M.A. Roberts believed that a society should judge all children equally at birth.  I thought that was implicit.  Now it’s explicit.

@ G. Ahuja, You wrote, “Sometimes you may be wrong in terms of judging someone wrongly based on group characteristics, but it has served me well and it is a necessity that we all in fact operate on whether we admit or not.”

That’s your perogative.  However, when you pre-judge someone your biases become self-perpetuating (i.e. if you believe “blondes are dumb” you’ll look for “dumb” charateristics when you meet a blonde and confirm you own pre-conceived idea). 

Everyone has biases, conscious or subconscious.  The problem becomes when people use those biases to try and deal with indidivduals that they DO meet based on those biases.  Or make decisions about groups or races based on those biases.  Particularly when one advocates that the government untake action toward indidviduals in that group, based on those preconceived notions.

I really should avoid these flame wars, but I am weak in the face of temptation.

The fact that your question was pseudointellectual was incidental to the criticism which was made clear:  namely your question was inherently unclear and elided over important ways all children will be treated unequally by every normal person from birth, precisely because we treat family members and blood relations better than strangers.  Your later clarification was not obvious in your original question, and it appeared you’d given the issue little thought, just as our good luck in being born in America rather than Burma will always make us unequal with those sad people in various important ways.

Confusing use of terms, assumptions about ultimate conclusions, the use of vague popular concepts, missing subjects, and the like are marks of the pseudointellectual.  I must wonder:  what is your educatgion level, McBrown?

Real intellectuals, even when they disagree, are at least clear on the boundaries of that disagreement. They do not take requests for clarification as attacks, as you did earlier in being asked to provide definitions of three very contested terms.  The point, incidentally, was not to find out what they meant.  I know perfectly well what conservatism, fascism, and libertarianism mean in common usage.  The point was to see what you believed, since it was unclear from your writing as a whole what role was played b y conservatism in between the extremes of fascism and libertarianism. 

Finally, your temper tantrums about being pigeon-holed or mistrated are also a mark of pseudointelletualism; you lose your cool and get too personal at the drop of a hat.  Just deal with the subject matter, please.  One thing you pick up at a seletive university is how to have a conversation; for all their faults, this inculcation of the culture of serious and calm discussion remains a virtue of an education at a top university.

You may think now that I’m being mean, but I’m not.  I’m focused on your words, as uninteresting and predictable as they are. I’m speculating as to the cause of your profoundly annoying traits, but you’re welcome to correct me.

@ C. Roach.  First and foremost, you proved my point.  No substance, just diatribe. “All hat, no cattle.” And the word “elide”.  What is your fixation with it?  You use it constantly. 

Now, to repond. I’ll stack my schooling up against yours anytime, pal.

It’s not a temper tantrum to point out the inconsistencies and biases which fill your posts.

Sorry if I upset you.  I guess the arrow must have struck too close to home. 

I note you didn’t disagree that I “pigeon-holed” your methodolgy.

Have fun with you pail and shovel.

I am not going to waste more time with the insult wars. You can have the last word.  Knock yourself out.

@ CR, One last thought.  If I ever defined myself as a “real intellectual” I’d give up the ghost.

The crime of Unit 731 is not that we used their research but that we failed to punish them as war criminals

Wow, I’m impressed with your taking a stand.

When Stalking a Wild Taboo, take advice from the master, Garrett Hardin:

“ Stalking taboos requires “long periods of quietness, a low profile, protective coloration, and the diversion of the quarry’s attention to other matters until the propitious moment.”

...a taboo cannot be productively attacked until the time is ripe.

Avoid irrelevant offensiveness.

The first step in emasculating a taboo should be to pin a proper label on it. As with Rumpelstilskin in the fairy story, the full power of a taboo depends on its remaining unnamed.

Never tackle more than one taboo at a time.”