> so let's just ignore 400 years of severe and oppressive unnatural selection then?
I don't think I've ignored it, as I've said "partially".
> with that said, these arguments trying to tease out tiny differences between arbitrary groups of people are simply not fruitful outside of trying to assert dominance/superiority over others. the point is always to establish a halo effect where favorable group characteristics shine generously on the braggart in question. it's always an argument about supremacy, not 'intellectual curiosity', but it actually signals individual insecurity rather than group superiority.
No, that's not my point at all. The context was the following comment:
> As for ratios, the ratio indicates an uneven pipeline. If idk, programmers were all white and highly rewarded, you might ask why that is. The reason can be one of two things: white people are culturally/systemically advantaged in getting those jobs (for example, those jobs are only available in predominantly-white areas or the education to do the job is more accessible to white people), or white people are more fundamentally capable of programming than others. The former is a social critique, the latter is white supremacy.
> If you reject the white supremacist position (as you should), then the question becomes whether you can make the system provide more of an equal opportunity.
In that comment, the author said that thinking that "white people are more fundamentally capable of programming than others" is white supremacy. I agree with you that in many cases, people trying to say that one group is fundamentally better than the other are supremacist. My point was that even if different people have different abilities, it shouldn't give them power over others.
I don't think I've ignored it, as I've said "partially".
> with that said, these arguments trying to tease out tiny differences between arbitrary groups of people are simply not fruitful outside of trying to assert dominance/superiority over others. the point is always to establish a halo effect where favorable group characteristics shine generously on the braggart in question. it's always an argument about supremacy, not 'intellectual curiosity', but it actually signals individual insecurity rather than group superiority.
No, that's not my point at all. The context was the following comment:
> As for ratios, the ratio indicates an uneven pipeline. If idk, programmers were all white and highly rewarded, you might ask why that is. The reason can be one of two things: white people are culturally/systemically advantaged in getting those jobs (for example, those jobs are only available in predominantly-white areas or the education to do the job is more accessible to white people), or white people are more fundamentally capable of programming than others. The former is a social critique, the latter is white supremacy.
> If you reject the white supremacist position (as you should), then the question becomes whether you can make the system provide more of an equal opportunity.
In that comment, the author said that thinking that "white people are more fundamentally capable of programming than others" is white supremacy. I agree with you that in many cases, people trying to say that one group is fundamentally better than the other are supremacist. My point was that even if different people have different abilities, it shouldn't give them power over others.