>>40108903you don't have to "infer" anyone's "worth" by referring to their membership in categories. that's not something I said. it's a tired example, but quite literally nobody would try to claim that Cletus the coal miner from West Virginia is smarter than Thomas Sowell, or whatever.
but.
the fact of the matter is that the categories *do* have predictive validity. and when we are talking about entire groups of people -- like for instance the entire continent of Africa, and the 1,500,000,000 Africans who live there -- then we can make accurate statements about those groups using imperfectly predictive correlations despite the existence of edge cases with regard to these categories. when anon wrote "no amount of support or aid would make the nigs smart on par with wypipo" -- well, that's a crude way of putting it, but it's also a truth-apt, legible statement. and it's not conceptually invalidated by the fact that not literally ALL blacks are equally intelligent, or by the fact that there are mixed race people or relatively small transitional populations that would be somewhat challenging or problematic to categorize as white/black/neither.
to repeat, this is basic statistical thinking that every human being engages in. when you step outside in the morning, you don't immediately conjure arguments about how sometimes sunny mornings are followed by stormy afternoons and vice versa, or start raising questions about where the line is for "raining", exactly. you just grab an umbrella
