So have you actually learned anything

Yes, though mostly indirectly. I've learned mostly from reading about neoreactionaries elsewhere. SSC, Moldbug, etc. I'm learning a lot. Very interesting. This discussion was the catalyst for my reading. So, thanks!

from these discussions

Yes, I've learned some directly from this discussion.

Mostly I've learned that people will get internet-hostile about certain topics. I was already aware of this, but my interaction in this discussion has re-cemented the fact in my mind. I've received a recent -37 karma lashing (to date). A lot of my downvoted comments were just simple sincere questions—I'd admitted my ignorance and was really seeking to understand these issues better. Maybe I'm just annoying to people to know more about these things and my questions seem obvious? I could understand people being annoyed... (Note: I kinda like a mixed karma bag. Nothing so negative so as to be perceived as any dumber than I am... but anything north of 90% on LW would worry me.)

I don't recall much of what I learned directly about this topic directly from this discussion. (Lumifer made some nice points that helped some things make more conceptual sense to me.) At any rate, what I actually learned about this topic from this direct discussion was a tiny percentage of what I've learned from reading elsewhere.

Also, it appears your account is very new—I'm hypothesizing this fact, along with my recent negative karma streak, along with the stories I've read about others' similar experiences when engaging in such topics...means you are the sock puppet of Eugine Nier. The Eugine Nier. That's super cool! Nice to meet you, Eugine. I've heard so much about you and I'm honored to... have drawn your ire. :)

in particular, are you willing to admit that the Hillary/Kane analysis of the "implicit biases" of police officers you cited in the OC is wrong.

Yes. Yes, I think there is a bit more to this than I realized.

I still think HRC's point was refreshing in the context of the debate, and potentially useful. But I'm wavering. I still believe people are (1) biased based on race (2) this bias can be unconscious and (3) this unconscious bias' effect would be pronounced in a high stress, high consequence environment where someone needed to act quickly (like what police officers face when they are in close proximity to a suspect). I'm cynical enough about politics not to be excited that HRC's one liner will change anything. Or that she intended it as very much more than a rhetorical judo move in that debate...

Anyway, I'm still thinking and reading about all of this stuff. My current epistemic status is "Oh Shit I'm Soooo Ignorant While Shaking My Head"

A sincere thank you for the interaction.

I think it's pretty easy to hypothesize about the possible effects of slavery vs. no slavery.

In the context of this thread, it was mentioned that the murder rate was much higher for blacks versus whites. If there are socioeconomic reasons for this, then I'm curious about slavery's contribution to those factors.

Politically, I'm generally empathetic toward ideas like affirmative action in the U.S. on the basis of race because there has been serious discrimination in the U.S. on the basis of race in the past. It makes practical sense to posit it created a "headstart" for races who were not... enslaved... and otherwise discriminated against and it makes ethical sense to employ measures to even the score.

I'm open to the idea ideas like AA may not actually practically work and could be persuaded as such by the evidence.