You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

TimS comments on 2012 Less Wrong Census Survey: Call For Critiques/Questions - Less Wrong Discussion

20 Post author: Yvain 19 October 2012 01:12AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (479)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: TimS 19 October 2012 02:40:42PM *  1 point [-]

This is the first time you've seen the claim, expressed as follows?

(1) "race" does not divide humanity according to any biologically justifiable criteria,
(2) "race" is used to provide a scientific halo effect to justify current social organization

(2) is obviously true - and is morally positive so long as the first assertion is false. (1) is controversial - but I've seen it expressed many times on LW and other places.

Offensiveness relies in the implicit premise that use of the halo effect when the underlying science is faulty is itself irrational / socially hurtful. That's isomorphic to asserting that the "Noble Lie" is immoral - which I thought was the consensus here.

I don't think I've seen "race" applied to animals-- "breed" or "subspecies" is what I'm used to?

I agree - I've never heard "race" used to categorize animals.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 19 October 2012 02:56:27PM 4 points [-]

I've seen both (1) and (2), but with a tone of "factually wrong" rather than "very offensive".

Comment author: Alicorn 19 October 2012 06:32:39PM 0 points [-]

I think "landrace" applies to animals, though.