Hate facts are true statements about reality that our elites demand remain occult and unuttered.
Elites don’t yet say that members of the elite cannot know hate facts, but they being good gnostics do try to control the spread of hate facts among the indigenous populants of these once United States.
Examples? We had many here. See the old post “Black And White Homicide Rates: Who’s Killing Whom?” Using official statistics, numbers which are therefore beyond dispute (“That’s a joke, son”), it was demonstrated that blacks murder at much higher rates than whites, that more blacks (proportionally) kill whites than whites kill blacks, and so on.
Like all hate facts, people know the truth of these statements, but you can see from the tone of the comments that some thought it in poor taste to state in public what we all knew to be true.
The fear of hate fact haters (our elites) is that hate facts will be used to generate hate, which is to say, to infer undesirable or incorrect explanations for the hate facts. Now it has been observed that blacks kill at higher rates than whites, and have done so for many decades, but the numbers themselves do not say why the difference exists. Some will say that the difference is caused because blacks and whites are different. Which is a trivially true statement. If it wasn’t trivially true, we would never be able to tell the difference between the races. The numbers do not however say why blacks as blacks kill at higher rates than whites as whites.
What to do about the difference in murder rate (or about any hate fact) is an altogether separate question. The answer can never be found in the hate facts themselves. The numbers are barren of cause. Cause and action have to be discovered outside them. Hate fact haters say that when the wrong people learn of hate facts, the cause they ascribe will invariably be some -ism or -phobia and the action (if required) will usually or always be hate. These conclusions do not necessarily follow.
It will be true sometimes that incorrect causes and unpalatable actions are proposed. But it is also true that hate fact haters come to incorrect causes and suggest actions that do more harm than good. We all know this story well enough about crime and race not to repeat it here.
Finally we come to confirmation about hate facts in a story discovered by reader Vince Lee. “Scholars claim that statistics ‘serve white racial interests’“.
Three British professors recently claimed that statistical analyses have been weaponized to “serve white racial interests” within academia and beyond.
Led by David Gillborn, a professor at the University of Birmingham, the professors argue that math serves white interests because it can “frequently encode racist perspectives beneath the facade of supposed quantitative objectivity.”
“Numbers are social constructs and likely to embody the dominant (racist) assumptions that shape contemporary society.”
“Contrary to popular belief, and the assertions of many quantitative researchers, numbers are neither objective nor color-blind,” Gillborn and his team assert in their article for the journal Race, Ethnicity, and Education.
7! 14! 23.5!
There’s some n-words for you, baby. N-umbers. Weapons. I slipped ’em in and you didn’t even notice.
I won’t tell you how “7” encodes a racist perspective beneath the facade of supposed quantitative objectivity because I’m already risking the censor by printing it. Saying what it means can land me prison.
Enough dumb jokes. The truth is these professors are frightened of hate facts. They know what numbers mean, and they know you know what numbers mean when you see them, but they wrongly suspect you will always ascribe incorrect causes and that you will propose harmful actions when you learn of the numbers.
These men have formed the field of “QuantCrit’—a portmanteau for ‘quantitative analysis’ and ‘critical race theory'”. They say “quantitative data is often gathered and analyzed in ways that reflect the interests, assumptions, and perceptions of White elites”, which is nonsense because it is impossible for any number to contain its cause. An analysis can be wrong when it ascribes the wrong cause. But numbers can never be wrong, nor can an analysis, unless they are lied about (I’m excepting mistakes).
Whatever else this is, it is a play for power. “The professors also acknowledge the tension between social justice and quantitative analysis, saying that while statistics can be used to point out the failures of social justice programming, ‘data is often used to shut down, silence, and belittle equity work.'”
In other words, hate facts undercut and disprove the theses of equality and diversity and they aren’t happy of it. Solution? Ban hate facts (in effect) by calling the hate facts themselves racsit, sexist, etc. etc. etc.
“they wrongly suspect you will always ascribe incorrect causes and that you will propose harmful actions when you learn of the numbers.”
More likely, they rightly suspect we will often ascribe correct causes and propose helpful actions.
I wonder if the maths that white privileged engineers used to design and construct all of those white (!) jets flying overhead are social constructs?
1984 Brave New World White is black, black is white. Hurry up Big Pharma and get that SOMA out there before we all end up on the reservation.
” they wrongly suspect you will always ascribe incorrect causes and that you will propose harmful actions ”
It’s called projection. “They” do this all the time and “they” figure [pun intended] we do also.
Years ago I read a book on the psychological origins of political correctness and the author pointed out that when you become PC you have to deny reality and live in fantasy land. The PC also believe they are victims of oppression and persecution.
Some days, I am particularly sorry and frustrated that guys like those in the post have respectable, paying, academic jobs, and Matt doesn’t.
This is one of those days.
I’m just waiting for somebody to tell me what 23.5! means from a sociological view.
You say: “Statistics Are Now Hate Facts”
I say: “Achievement Unlocked.”
From the Institution in question
Professor David Gillborn
Professor David Gillborn
School of Education
Professor of Critical Race Studies
Director of Research, Director of the Centre for Research in Race & Education (CRRE) and Editor-in-Chief, Race Ethnicity and Education
+44 (0)121 414 4835
School of Education
University of Birmingham
B15 2TT, United Kingdom
David is Professor of Critical Race Studies, editor-in-chief of the journal Race Ethnicity and Education, Director of Research in the School of Education and Director of the Centre for Research in Race and Education (CRRE).
David’s research focuses on race inequalities in education, especially the role of racism as a changing and complex characteristic of the system. He has written 6 books and more than 140 refereed articles, chapters and reports that range from original studies in classrooms and with teachers, through national reviews of research evidence in the field, to analyses of the changing policy landscape internationally. He is closely associated with the approach known as ‘Critical Race Theory’ and, in 2012, received the Derrick Bell Legacy Award; the highest honor possible from the US-based Critical Race Studies in Education Association (CRSEA).
David is a Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences (FAcSS), a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts (FRSA), and a Laureate of Kappa Delta Pi (KDP), the US-based International Honor Society in Education. Membership is of the Laureate Chapter is limited to 60 living scholars judged to have made ‘a significant and lasting impact on the profession of education’.
Staff detailsPolicy information
Open all sections
Feedback and office hours
Ph. D. Sociology of Education, University of Nottingham (1987)
BA (Hons) Sociology of Education, University of Nottingham (1983)
Basically in his whole academic career a number has never even accidentally bitten him on the arse…. But he somehow knows what they ought to mean…
So, Mike, what you’re really saying is that JohnK is mistaken? That is, they have academic paying jobs, but hardly respectable.
I’m concerned that they’ve avoided numerate disciplines like the plague, presumably because that number stuff is, you know, difficult… but wish to set the gate-keeping requirements for everyone else’s use of numbers.
As used to be written in the ablution facilities at the university I attended, just above the wiping paper dispenser… “sociology degrees.. please take one”
I wonder if the Arabs who first socially constructed those numbers knew they were creating the magic weapons white elites would use to control society.