HN Books @HNBooksMonth

You should read some Thomas Sowell. He should help cure you of your "cosmic justice" aspirations.

https://www.amazon.com/Quest-Cosmic-Justice-Thomas-Sowell/dp...

https://www.amazon.com/Discrimination-Disparities-Thomas-Sow...

https://www.amazon.com/Black-Rednecks-Liberals-Thomas-Sowell...

https://www.amazon.com/Wealth-Poverty-Politics-Thomas-Sowell...

The very idea that, in a just world, outcomes along various lines of demarcation between groups of humans would be roughly even has zero evidence to support it. In fact, all of history, as well as the state of the universe itself, testify that this should not be the case! Never has there ever been equal outcomes between any groups in history. The world is complex, and the causes for disparity are too numerous to list and impossible to even attempt to measure or tease apart in their impacts. Sowell has written about numerous causes of disparity between groups that have nothing to do with racism or any societal injustice, and the above book examples are just a small portion of what he has written.

What leftists like to do is over-simplify the world to fit their pre-conceived notions. If there is racial disparity, it must have been caused by systemic racism! Therefore, we must fix it through systemic racism in the opposite direction! This kind of thinking is broken, flawed, and completely incorrect to the core, and acting on it simply leads to more injustice, more unfairness, and more disparity of different kinds. It is an ideology born of intellectual pride, moral vanity, and an utter lack of wisdom.

⬐ feoren

> The very idea that, in a just world, outcomes along various lines of demarcation between groups of humans would be roughly even has zero evidence to support it.

Actually it has as much evidence as you have time. Take a big bag of fair dice, and split them randomly into two groups. Actually, split them however you want, whatever "lines of demarcation" you choose. Then roll them and apply literally any measure of literally any statistical outcome you want.

Oh shit, it turns out: in a just world, outcomes along arbitrary lines of demarcation are roughly even! Every time!

> Never has there ever been equal outcomes between any groups in history.

So? You need to assert that history has been just to different groups for this to be evidence to support your statement about what happens in a just world. Are you asserting that history has been just? Think hard before you answer this one.

> What leftists like to do is over-simplify the world to fit their pre-conceived notions.

Sure, like my dice example. Except the problem is, for my dice example to be wrong, you need to specify a reason why some dice roll differently than others, and you need to split the groups based on this reason. Remember: any arbitrary split must necessarily have roughly equal outcomes in a just world. If the world is just, any clear variance from equal outcomes must be due to some intrinsic differences in the dice themselves.

Let's say we split humans into two groups based on whether their birthday is an even or odd number (day of the month). This is a line of demarcation between groups of humans. Let's use your first sentence here:

> The very idea that, in a just world, outcomes along various lines of demarcation between groups of humans would be roughly even has zero evidence to support it.

So this is where we disagree, right? I assert that these two groups would have roughly the same outcome in almost any measure. It's a clearly arbitrary line. But you say there's no evidence to support that. Really? Really? Do you really believe that the odd-birthday group would be significantly different in outcome than the even-numbered, in any way? Of course not. In literally any "outcome" measure you could come up with, these two groups are indistinguishable.

Let's say we split humans into two groups based on biological sex. Would we expect to see any differences in any outcomes? Of course: there are differences in average height, muscle mass, sexual preferences, arrangement of sex organs, etc. There are actual intrinsic differences between these groups that account for some differences in outcomes, even in a just world.

Now let's say we split humans into two groups based on skin color. Uh-oh. We see huge differences in outcomes here. Can we explain it by intrinsic differences? Careful. There are really only two options here: either the world is not just, or skin color is not arbitrary. Asserting the second is literal racism: you're saying there's something naturally different about people with black skin that accounts for their vastly greater rates of poverty even in a just world. That's textbook racism, and, even worse, plain-old incorrect. It's also simply not logically necessary, because we know the world has not been just. Very, very not-just to that particular group, in fact.

> If there is racial disparity, it must have been caused by systemic racism!

Such a vapid strawman argument. This bullshit only works if we've never actually observed systemic racism. Slavery, the Greenwood bombing, segregation, Jim Crow, police slayings -- those are not hypothetical events dreamed up by "leftists" to account for racial disparity we observe. Systemic racism did happen, and in many cases is still happening, and then later we observe that there is also racial disparity. These "leftists" go "hey, maybe the racial disparity we see now has something to do with all that systemic racism that was going on for hundreds of years" and you pretend like this is some unfounded conclusion-jumping?

Your train of pseudo-reasoning, like that of so many other racism-apologists, only works if you conveniently ignore the actual multi-hundred year history of actual racism that actually happened. So many of your points sound completely asinine when you re-read them with that in mind.

⬐ PathOfEclipse

> Take a big bag of fair dice, and split them randomly into two groups.

If you think human outcomes follow a simple normal distribution in a just world, then you are making the exact prime mistake I already pointed out; which is dramatically, and I mean dramatically, over-simplifying the world. Seriously: read some Thomas Sowell. Nothing about this world or this universe is normally distributed.

> Are you asserting that history has been just? Think hard before you answer this one.

What is "just"? Think hard before you answer that one. Actually, read "The Quest for Cosmic Justice" and the "Intellectuals and Society" by Sowell. You'll find that the social justice version of justice is vastly different from what people have historically thought of as justice. It is also, in my estimation, far more unjust, unfair, harmful, and evil than the traditional view. It is an arrogant ideology based on a belief that one has the power to shape the world, and all of society within it, according to one's whims, rather than a proper respect for the fact that we are brief sojourners in a vast, complex, and powerful universe, and a planet filled with billions of complex individuals.

> Sure, like my dice example. Except the problem is, for my dice example to be wrong, you need to specify a reason why some dice roll differently than others,

You should read "Discrimination and Disparities" By Thomas Sowell, where he quickly crushes the normal distribution hypothesis for economic outcome. He shows through very simple examples, which are still dramatically over-simplifying the world, where there are multiple preconditions for success, and where missing even one precondition results in the same failure as missing all of them. This model alone completely disproves a normal distribution hypothesis, even in a world where the preconditions are distributed randomly. And, not to sound like a broken record, the preconditions are not distributed randomly or evenly in any way, not by nature or time themselves.

> I assert that these two groups would have roughly the same outcome in almost any measure.

Nice assertion, but do you even have any scientific data to back it up? And, even if it you did, and I actually can't find any by searching, it would simply provide evidence that your birthday modulo 2 likely doesn't impact economic outcomes. But we can, of course, find economic disparity everywhere for a thousand different reasons. Firstborns on average have higher IQs and better economic outcomes than all other-borns. There is not random economic outcome distribution even within the same household and within the same genetic pool: http://jhr.uwpress.org/content/53/1/123.short.

In a world of universal economic disparity, the burden of proof is on you to show why things she be different and how. But, like your leftist forebears, you have no proof, only words and religious beliefs packaged into an ideology.

> Can we explain it by intrinsic differences?

You can explain it a billion different ways. The question is: who is right, and how do you prove it? Read "Black Rednecks and White Liberals" by Sowell, and "Intellectuals and Race" while you're at it. You'll find plenty of explanations that have nothing to do with either racism or of innate genetic differences. It is proponents of CRT who need to prove themselves, but because they are in vogue culturally, they get away with their evidence-less assertions without any pushback.

> Slavery, the Greenwood bombing, segregation, Jim Crow, police slayings -- those are not hypothetical events dreamed up by "leftists" to account for racial disparity we observe.

It's good leftists didn't make them up, since leftists, namely, the democrat party, were primarily responsible for all of those things over the past 200 years. They didn't make it up because they mostly caused it! And again, correlation does not imply causation, such a basic statistical truism that CRT theorists love to ignore. Just because there was racism, even just because there still is racism, doesn't mean that racism is the primary cause of economic disparity, or, even a major cause at all! Sowell has written about multiple minority groups in different countries, who, despite being oppressed by real racism, and not the made up CRT kind, managed to prosper economically far above and beyond the majority population.

> Your train of pseudo-reasoning, like that of so many other racism-apologists, only works if you conveniently ignore the actual multi-hundred year history of actual racism that actually happened.

Go read "The real history of slavery" and "Conquest and Cultures" by Sowell. In fact, we are probably more educated on slavery than you are, judging from your performance in this debate. The only racists are people like you who think that the appropriate reaction to disparity is real, explicit racism against those with "privileged" skin color. But, really, you're just following a long tradition of the political left being racist.

I realize this conversation is a waste of time, but maybe one day you'll listen, educate yourself on reality, and develop a better-functioning moral compass.

Edit: I just want to take a moment to point out how unscientific you are with your statements, like: "Sure, like my dice example. Except the problem is, for my dice example to be wrong, you need to provide a reason why...."

I don't know what leftist education you paid for or in what university, but in a just world you deserve that loan forgiveness Biden is offering. Science is about making a hypothesis, and then, you yourself objectively gathering evidence that could either support or refute that hypothesis, and only then making a conclusion that is backed by your data. You, of course, did the opposite. You made a hypothesis, that economic outcomes between humans "should" be normally distributed, concluded it must be true, and, finally you put it on other people to disprove it. That's, anti-science! And, no, comparing human beings to six-sided dice is not scientific evidence. You might have missed that in your education as well.

Similarly, you assert that birthday modulo 2 has no impact on economic outcome, yet fail to provide any scientific evidence. Yours is a world of cult-like ideology and secular religion, where evidence is irrelevant, or an afterthought.

⬐ feoren

So many things in this response make it clear you have no interest in arguing in good faith. I thought you were actually trying to make a rational argument before, but this response belies that you are not.

Like this one:

> since leftists, namely, the democrat party, were primarily responsible for all of those things over the past 200 years

That is so inane it does not even deserve a response. You've given away that you're not arguing in good faith.

> Similarly, you assert that birthday modulo 2 has no impact on economic outcome, yet fail to provide any scientific evidence

This comment illustrates this well. You know that birthday modulo 2 has no impact on economic outcome. You know that that's the case. There is not a shadow of a doubt in your mind that that is obviously correct. But of course whoever you're arguing with must provide mountains of scientific evidence (at which point you would undoubtedly move the goal posts), whereas you're allowed to get away with "simply" making semi-rational arguments and quoting, over and over, literally one source, who (according to wikipedia):

> Sowell was an important figure to the new conservative movement during the Reagan Era, influencing fellow economist Walter E. Williams and U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

Oof. Double-oof. So this singular person you're relying on for all your backup was an important figure to the most awful presidency of the modern era, the start of an economic plague that has allowed the rich to loot and ransack this nation's prosperity and dramatically worsened the very racial and socioeconomic disparities at the heart of this argument, and a corrupt Supreme Court justice who is a major leader in a movement to destroy democracy in the U.S. and replace it with a peusdo-Christian Theology. Yikes.

I came here prepared to reply with more rational discussion, but like always, the longer you talk to racism-apologists, the more you see the facade unraveling, the bad-faith arguments, and the goalposts moving. It's not worth it.

⬐ PathOfEclipse

You can call it insane but it doesn't change the fact that what I said about the democrat party is true: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_a7dQXilCo

"Did you know that the Democratic Party defended slavery, started the Civil War, founded the KKK, and fought against every major civil rights act in U.S. history? watch as Carol Swain, professor of political science at Vanderbilt University, shares the inconvenient history of the Democratic Party."

Your resistance to my statement has nothing to do with the truth and everything to do with your own cognitive bias.

Here is another source: https://www.socialjusticesurvivalguide.com/2018/01/08/the-de...

"SJWs who go around browbeating Americans over a history of slavery, the KKK, and Jim Crow can’t then complain when we point out that it was actually the Democratic Party which was most involved in this history."

> You know that birthday modulo 2 has no impact on economic outcome. You know that that's the case

The point is not what I believe or "know" to be true. The point is to actually test your beliefs empirically against reality. If you're not doing that, then you're not doing anything remotely scientific. You might as well be spouting your religious beliefs, which you have been, by the way.

Your views on Reagan and Thomas, along with your rejection of the truth about your own political party, reveal your extreme bias, ignorance, and mis-education. No one could claim the Reagan presidency was the worst in U.S. history, or that Thomas leads a movement to destroy "democracy in the U.S.", without a hefty combination of all three. And, If I am quoting one source, it beats your zero sources and your ridiculous comparison of humans to dice and economic outcomes to dice rolls. But, really, many, many others have said the same things as Sowell. He just says it best. Those include a host of other people you'll dismiss because you clearly only pay attention to leftwing sources that agree with your existing religion.

⬐ philwelch

If you maintain any sort of ethnic distinction, the consequence of that is going to be a divergence of cultural values and practices that leads to different outcomes. In the 1940’s, the United States deliberately assembled the greatest collection of scientific minds available to them to invent the first atomic bombs; for some reason, the most overrepresented ethnic group in that project were Hungarian Jews. This was not a time of great philo-Semitic or pro-Hungarian sentiment among American elites; it just worked out that way. In fact, the America of that time was so threatened by Jewish overperformance that universities adopted de facto anti-Semitic quotas in their admissions process; East Asians experience similar discrimination do today.

You aren’t wrong to think black Americans are the victims of systemic racism; the problem is that most the “systemic racism” that operates today is an unintended consequence of well-meaning liberal policies, as Sowell has discussed for decades now.

> but when the data consistently bears out that that is not the truth you have a responsibility to look at reality.

I have to admit you've lost me. What reality are we talking about?

> "The democrats are smug" okay...lets ask the follow-up question. Why? how? please explain?

Thomas Sowell has written entire books about the arrogance of leftism. This one I've read personally: https://www.amazon.com/Quest-Cosmic-Justice-Thomas-Sowell/dp...

This one I would like to find time to read: https://www.amazon.com/Vision-Anointed-Self-Congratulation-S...

From my own personal experience, it takes a certain arrogance to believe in authoritarianism, that a few elite should be making all the decisions for the unwashed masses. This describes the current democrat party to a tee.

Similarly, it takes a certain arrogance to believe you have all the answers, and similarly, to ignore all the evidence that disproves your assumptions. This describes most so-called progressives.

In contrast, it takes humility to be a conservative, recognize that you don't have all the answers, that things are the way they are for a reason, and that the world is complex with more far tradeoffs than pure solutions.

⬐ avs733

“People have written books”

Is not a response to “why do you hold this opinion”

It strikes me as pretty much straight up satire to use as your primary source the writings of a guy with degrees from Harvard and works for the Hoover institution at standford. To then go from the arrogance of the left to the arrogance of authoritarianism…I honestly think this is parody.

The basics here, that are worth reiterating, is that there is, as usual, no serious people on the left claiming they have all the answers…the only people claiming that are constructing useful strawpeople to then try and tear down.

⬐ PathOfEclipse

I'm glad I can amuse you with satire that isn't. I challenge you to read one of those books and open your mind a little. If you aren't blind, the authoritarianism and arrogance of the left is visible everywhere. And Sowell is anything but the typical Harvard grad. So there is nothing funny about my citation.

⬐ reducesuffering

> it takes a certain arrogance to believe in authoritarianism, that a few elite should be making all the decisions for the unwashed masses. This describes the current democrat party to a tee.

I see you got the names of the Democrat and Republican parties confused. As the 2020 election showed a minority of the country tried to throw out the results of an election to usurp power for their authoritarian...

⬐ PathOfEclipse

No I got the parties right. Democrats are the true authoritarians right now. No amount of January 6th political theater can cover it up. It's too massive to hide.

⬐ avs733

Making you feel bad isn’t authoritarianism.

⬐ avs733

I’m pretty convinced parent comment is parody. Sadly that’s a position I’m holding just for my own sanity

This is what is meant by the “arrogance”. Peoples opinions are not accepted as inherently credible. The bad faith and the intellectual dishonesty and the projection are not an accident, they are a narrative tool that metastasizes

Anyone who actually thinks this is a good idea should read Thomas Sowell's The Quest for Cosmic Justice (http://www.amazon.com/Quest-Cosmic-Justice-Thomas-Sowell/dp/...), and everything else Sowell wrote, and Hayek and von Mises, and Friedman and all the other economists who've long since debunked this kind of idiocy . . .