Washed-Up Morrissey: Still Racist, Still Worshiped

The fact that people are upset about this quote proves that there's nothing that frightens Americans more than complex thoughts and complete sentences:

Did you see the thing on the news about their treatment of animals and animal welfare? Absolutely horrific. You can't help but feel that the Chinese are a subspecies.

The forceful deployment of languages against obvious wrongs only inspires the weak-minded to pieties and moralism.

What Morrissey said was rude. What those who abuse animals do is evil. Learn the difference.

Science and Racism

Andrew Sullivan links to an article that allows him to say something stupid without having to actually say it himself. Basically, that left-wing science goes soft and fundamentalist when faced with the issue of racial differences and always moves to attack anyone who brings up the issue. It's oh so un-scientific, says the right. Here's the relevant quote from Selwyn Duke:

Why, miracle of miracles, all these two-legged cosmic accidents, the product of a billions-of-years journey from the primordial soup to primacy among creatures, whose evolution was influenced by perhaps millions of factors, wound up being precisely the same. It's really the best argument for God I've ever heard, as such a statistical impossibility could only exist if it was ordained by the one with whom all things are possible.

No one in the scientific community would ever argue that every individual is the same as every other. We've all got our own unique genes and mutations that we're striving to pass on to the next generation. But the sorts of big group differences that most racists go for? No. The big differences between populations have never been shown to be meaningful and at a genetic level don't seem to actually exist.

We're not clones, but humanity is not made up of multiple species either.

A racist is someone who exploits superficial differences between groups as though they were real and meaningful for personal power and profit. A scientist is someone who identifies real differences between individuals in order to make predictions about likely outcomes (like susceptibility to certain diseases, etc.).

The problem with people like James Watson is that he's willing to write off an entire continent because he can't separate his scientific opinions from his racist views. Folks like Duke and Sullivan are in danger of doing the same if they can't see the difference.

The Right hates science when it challenges their preconceptions, but love it as a tool for re-enforcing the status quo. Biology is bad because it undermines Creation. But it might be good, if it can be used to prove racist stereotypes and support bell curve thinking. Physics is good when it gives you Nuclear Weapons, but its bad when it proves time to be "relativistic."

This sort of thinking is childish. Almost as childish as the bit about God and statistical impossibility in the quote. This sort of bargain basement ID creationism is an intellectual embarrassment, and just proves how soft in the head right wingers get anytime someone approvingly invokes God. Sullivan ought to know better, yet he rarely does.

Hateful Actions Speak Louder Than Hateful Words

Anyone who's ever complained that the web is for amateurish, sophomoric, thoughtless, self-serving, echo chamber opinionating can have a field day with this little micro controversy.

So first, James Watson makes some rather unfounded assertions about IQ and race, and gets himself in all sorts of hot water. Then, this other guy in The Guardian complains that racist speech like Watson's is a violation of human rights. To which this other other guy objects to on the grounds of free speech.

Then, Chris Bertram at Crooked Timber picks up the discussion by arguing that government can play a role in outlawing hate speech:

Far from liberty being endangered by hate-speech legislation it may—and whether it is depends very much on the specific social and historical circumstances—ensure that many people continue to enjoy effective liberty.

At which point Andrew Sullivan, seizing on both the phrases "hate speech" and "effective liberty," sees some hidden left-wing conspiracy:

But the motivation behind hate-crime laws - a loathing of liberty and group-think victimology - is still out there. To make my own position clear: The elimination of bigotry is not a legitimate role of government.

To which Bertram replies:

The right frame, in my view, is to think of the state as “we, the people” and to ask what conditions need to be in place for the people, and for each citizen, to play their role in effective self-government. Once you look at things like that then various speech restrictions naturally suggest themselves.

So in almost no time at all we go from discredited views on race and IQ, to human rights, to free speech, to hate speech and effective liberty, to group-think victimology, to "we, the people" passing speech restrictions upon ourselves. Brilliant. Well done, one and all.

My problem with the entire discussion is how easily it conflates words with actions and name-calling with law and policy. The original objection to Watson is not what he said, but that his opinions have the potential to affect policy. In his original statement he said that he was:

"inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really."

In other words he wasn't just saying racist things, he was advocating policy changes that would affect real people in the real world. That's the difference. You can't outlaw name-calling, or hateful words, but you must always be on guard against their implementation and practice.

And that's the real problem, because in reality our politicians are smart enough, most of the time, to avoid hateful speech, while silently carrying on with passing legislation that is harmful toward minorities, women, children, and gays. It's the deeds and not their words you have to watch out for.

The other problem with all of this is that any coward can hide behind hate speech laws. If you criticize a Nazi, you're violating his rights. If you object to female circumcision or honor killings, you're violating someone else's religious freedom. It's all bad, once you tie identity to rights and protections.

The social goal should always be to protect the marginalized and disadvantaged from the predatory indifference of the powerful. The social reality is that those groups are always in flux, and those who are out of power today are always pushing toward the center.

On the other hand, you'll always recognize those who are in a position to abuse their power: they're the ones who have no need of freedom or speech. They take without asking, and attack without words.