"Race realism"? It's toxic racist crap. Let's discuss why.


Why would anyone type out ‘Race Realism’ when there’s another word for the same thing that is 5 letters shorter?


Is that word “Realist?”


This is a good point. @gurugeorge I’d suggest the tag line “race realism is about ethics in movie journalism.”


it’s assface



I legitimately laughed.


For fairness and completeness, here is her original speech without any editorializing or editing trickery

There’s a term, beloved of the right, for those whom get offended or ‘triggered’ by this. It’s fragile, white, and is essentially a centered around a cold heart of dirt.


Well if we are going to talk about “race realism” perhaps our self appointed guru can explain what’s realistic about the racial groupings we use in the US? Presumably a “realistic” view of race is rooted in biology, right? But the racial groupings we use in the US are only very weakly and somewhat abstractly biological in nature in most cases, and in some cases, primarily historical rather than biological.

In real reality, there is very little realistic about the racial groupings we use in the US, which makes the concept of a “realistic racism” (I’ll call it what it is) complete BS all the way down.

Think about the groups we use:

Hispanic? That’s a linguistic category, not a biological one. How “realistic” is it to lump all people speaking one primary language into one group when the people in the group are originating from multiple continents, dozens of countries and in terms of ancestry from almost every part of the globe? It’s a historical/political term, not a biological one, and as such trying to say that there are “realistic” inherent/biological aspects to being Hispanic, well, biology doesn’t work that way.

Asian/Pacific Islander? We lump people from one of the most successful human diasporas, spread out over half the globe, with a vast array of hundreds, thousands, perhaps even tens of thousands of years of separate histories into one category. And on top of that, biologically, the Asian group shows the largest internal genetic variety of any continent-group, except for Africa.

Africian American? Again, we lump people from an entire continent (and more) into one group, and ignore the fact that biologically, Africa is by far the most diverse continent. On top of that, we still use the obsolete “one drop rule” to place people with only a fraction of African heritage into this group. For example, President Obama, who is realistically, biologically 50% of European descent and 50% of African descent, is labelled “African American”. The African American population in the US, due to a combination of sexual exploitation during the slavery era (and after in some cases) along with intermarriage, is something like 10% to 20% (on average) of European descent and 80% to 90% of African descent. Many African Americans have more realistic biological relatedness to European Americans than to other people of African descent. So why is it “realistic” to look at slight gradations of skin color as being more important than a person’s actual heritage.

Also, on top of that, realism tells us that individual variation is much greater than any level of group variation we can measure. Even if you accept the various “standardized test differentials” (which I don’t), those show at most a small percentage point variation between groups while individuals vary by an order of magnitude or more greater standard deviation.

And’s the real realism. If you want to be realistic, you have to treat people as individuals, rather than spew a bunch of crap about how “realistic” it is to treat racial groups differently.

And lastly, Mr. Guru, your whole argument is based on an unfounded assumption that people made genre-preference choices in an “uncoerced” fashion. You do realize that female science fiction authors had real trouble getting published during the Alan W. Campbell era, right? You do realize that institutional sexism and racism meant that most early comic writers and artists didn’t even have to compete with women and people of color for slots on comics. I love me some Stan Lee, but his version of an “everyday American” Peter Parker, just happens to represent people like Lee, who didn’t have to compete with the entire range of American diversity to get published.

Our history and politics have shaped our culture, including our preferences in genre etc. And that history does include a whole shitload of racism, sexism, etc.

So don’t go assuming that “boys like superheros because freedom” b/c you are ignoring the fact that for decades an American girl caught reading a superhero comic would be considered a freak and ostracized.

“Uncoerced” my ass.


Race realists don’t like to admit that racism and sexism exist, or ever existed, or led to some of the “facts” they use to build their race realism reality.

To them it’s clear that there are fewer African American CEOs because they’re just not very good at being leaders.

White men, though, are good at everything, and can be whatever they want.


What are they regressing into?


I just wonder if race realists have significant economic anxiety.


Ugh, more liberal regressiveness from Brie Larson, who suggests Captain Marvel could beat Superman, who is, as his name implies, a man. And Captain Marvel is not a man.

Next thing you know NASA will join the regression and let women out…INTO SPACE…without a man present.



That reminds me, I still need to watch Gravity.


Don’t you dare. It’s just round-earth propaganda piled on top of SJW wet dreams that allow Sandra Bullock to escape a space catastrophe while George Clooney, who clearly would be smarter since he’s a man, dies.

I mean they even make Bullock’s character a SCIENTIST. She’s not even a homemaker, veterinarian, or nurse. Totally unbelievable since we know those are professions that women are drawn to. Clearly she only got her job through liberal affirmative action policies.

Spoiler alert, of course.


Your spoiler was late. Time to skip the movie. Off to Bird Box with me.


Oh don’t get me started on Bird Box. Liberal Hollywood at its worst.


By the way, the irony of the guy suggesting that liberals are regressive, while espousing opinions from the 1950s or even the 1850s, is delicious.


Sorry, one last thing I want to use to trigger @gurugeorge! I’m in Paris and have insomnia.

The roots of social regressive liberal SJWs go deep.


According to geneticists, race isn’t’ biological at all.


The best part is, he got to call an entire gender and most the human race less than, but at least he wasn’t told he was disruptive, showing up in a Marvel movie to discuss the vile ideas straight out of books and articles designed to dehumanize large portions of the human race.

I don’t get it. I really don’t. Maybe I should just stop trying. The line is drawn, and this is acceptable.


I must say I’m impressed with your command of the language in this field. I mean, not everyone is aware of the explanatory power of terminology to describe these phenomena. Indeed, I only recently read that great paper On the Connection Between Certain Allele Frequencies and Their Relation to Nerd Domains. Where did you study?