2008 June 07 Saturday
Growing List Of Political Figures Banned From Russian TV
Russia serves as a useful reminder that democracy does not always produce freedom of press and speech.
MOSCOW — On a talk show last fall, a prominent political analyst named Mikhail G. Delyagin had some tart words about Vladimir V. Putin. When the program was later televised, Mr. Delyagin was not.
Not only were his remarks cut — he was also digitally erased from the show, like a disgraced comrade airbrushed from an old Soviet photo. (The technicians may have worked a bit hastily, leaving his disembodied legs in one shot.)
Mr. Delyagin, it turned out, has for some time resided on the so-called stop list, a roster of political opponents and other critics of the government who have been barred from TV news and political talk shows by the Kremlin.
The march of freedom and democracy across the world is not inevitable. The West is not leading a sort of modern Manifest Destiny for how the whole world will function.
Lots of major political figures in Russia have disappeared from Russian television.
Onetime Putin allies like Mikhail M. Kasyanov, his former prime minister, and Andrei N. Illarionov, his former chief economic adviser, disappeared from view. Garry K. Kasparov, the former chess champion and leader of the Other Russia opposition coalition, was banned, as were members of liberal parties.
Of course, the United States has its own taboo views the utterance of which make people disappear regardless of how great their accomplishments.
By Randall Parker at 2008 June 07 03:21 PM
I am willing to publically acknowledge that certain people or groups of people have low IQs. However, I will only do it if we can establish a managerial state (an anathema for paleoconservatives) for those poor souls.
But I am suspicious of those who beat the IQ drum. Those people are not promising a large welfare state for the low IQ people to assist them. I do not see anything that can be gained by admitting that they have a low IQ. At least, the information about IQ will sunder conservatives myths about personal responsible. The people with low IQs do not need lectures about personal responsibility -- they need a benevolent welfare state because private charity will not suffice for those unfortunate souls.
I do not see how overcoming the taboo on IQ will help those with low IQs. I see no reason to lament over the attitude about the truths on IQ.
All the 'banned' are traitorous bastards who are in the pay of America or Israel.
You mean unless I'm willing to sacrifice my interests for those of others I am suspect?
You think taboos make our educational policies more adaptive? I do not have time to dig up all the ways that lies make our policies more damaging. But here is one damaging consequence. Note that people who go down failed educational paths do not just learn less. They also waste more time and money. They end up with debt that burdens them.
I am will to be an opponent of affirmative action if the people who beat the IQ drum admit that those with low IQs need a "loving nanny" to hold their hand while they face the turbulence of life. Those people are like children who need supervision for their own welfare. Ok, stop wasting money on affirmative action programs and spend it on a welfare state that will truly benefit those with low IQs.
Doesn't the welfare (nanny) state benefit the people with low IQs and boost their living standards? Of course, it wouldn't boost the living standards of those with high IQs though.
"The people with low IQs do not need lectures about personal responsibility -- they need a benevolent welfare state because private charity will not suffice for those unfortunate souls."
That's exactly what they do not need. Giving money for being poor to a group that is prone to polygyny and violence is exactly what changed between 1965 and today to make any area where low IQ groups live violent, run down and filthy.
Since lower IQ people have less foresight, they have less ability to intellectually figure out the consequences of their actions. Since they have less impulse control they are prone to making rash decisions for short term gain. High IQ people do fine in a benevolent welfare state because they don't have nearly as strong an inclination to do stupid destructive things. Over time however, a welfare state will breed people who do just that (look at the UK) because women, given no constraints, prefer violent criminal men to stable men who work.
What people with low IQs need are exactly lectures about personal responsibility. There then need to be harsh corrections for those who do not internalize the lessons; if you break the law, you don't maybe go to jail after your 2nd or 3rd offense (and months or years later): you get caned in public (Singapore style) or beaten by the cops within a week (pre-60s US style). Get pregnant without any means to support the baby? Well, better either grovel to private charity (unpleasant) or eat lots of ramen (unpleasant). (At least you'll live in a safe neighborhood.) It might suck for the low IQ people who have to learn this lesson first hand but these people will serve as huge warnings to those younger than them. This, btw, definitely works. For example, crack was a huge problem. Now, not so much. Why? Did crack disappear? Nope. People (even those with limited intelligence) saw that people who took crack end up as losers in life. The human drive for status took over from there.
Basically do as much sure harm as possible to those who make self destructive and socially destructive choices and people will adapt and stop doing self and socially destructive things. When you do the opposite, cushion the harms that people do to themselves and forgive the harms they do to others, you end up with a society that gets worse and worse.
The IQ drum: Again, this "drum" is really just reality as it really exists. People are suspicious for pointing out reality? You aren't going to accept reality unless the people who point to reality say "Hey, I'm willing to be taxed to support these dummies"?
But the dummies breed much faster. Am I supposed to support more dummies every year? What's in it for me?
"Get pregnant without any means to support the baby? Well, better either grovel to private charity (unpleasant) or eat lots of ramen (unpleasant). "
Why not provide free abortions and birth control? I most certainly do not have any moral objections about that.
Of course, I want to minimize the exposure to adversity for those with low IQs. I also understand the need to keep them from reproducing. I suppose trying to emulate the practices of countries with low birth rates might help. I wonder if encouraging low IQ people to live more like "parasite singles" might decrease their rate of reproduction. It help decrease overall fertility in Japan. Maybe subsidies to low income families to encourage this lifestyle might be beneficial. I also wonder what is the rate of drug use in Scandinavian countries among white people compared to the United States. I suppose the IQ distribution of whites is similar in those regions.
"What's in it for me?" I suppose you would support this if you owned significant amounts of capital. More cheap labor for you I guess. If you ask that question: what is morally wrong with owners of capital supporting illegal immigration?
70% of black children are born illegitimate (i.e. to unmarried mothers). Keeping people single does not prevent pregnancy among some groups.
Birth control: I'm all for it. But I think you aren't proposing to go far enough to achieve it.
What I'm saying is what's in it for me to support a welfare state with monthly checks for no work, subsidized housing, and all that?
I do not expect them to find work ... I remember reading several papers from Gottfredson that stated that those people do not have the requisite "g" to gain admission into the army. It is humane to provide what they need to minimize their exposure to adversity even if they are unable to find jobs. Maybe myths that these people are lazy are necessary for the opposition against a welfare state. Maybe we should simply do what Sweden does: put them away in so-called "labor market political activities." Just support them and try to restructure society to discourage their reproduction. Maybe cultural conservatives are correct about the degeneration of values and the creation of a hedonistic MTV culture that glorifies spontaneous sex.
To digress, I used to be a Richard Dawkins secularist. Now I realize that religion might serve some important functions. It might help discourage those people from reproducing.
I think your views on what is possible for American Blacks is overinfluenced by your interest in Japan. Blacks are not low IQ Japanese, vulnerable to becoming parasite singles or being so shy that they never leave their rooms. Think of the Japanese as space aliens: their way of life works for them, but it can't be adopted by a population with a very different evolutionary history.
Also, the problem with the underclass is not that they have far more babies than want because horrid social conservatives and institutional racists keep them away from birth control and abortion. The problem is they want, and have, lots of babies, but don't have the ability, even with handouts, to raise them in ways society considers acceptable.