> and that the explanations you give for why "some people think pointing out that IQ for blacks is lower is a racist statement and others do not think it's a racist statement" are both something that a racist - perhaps different racists - might agree with.
The implication here is that I'm racist. You then go on to explain that having an opinion that a racist would agree with is problematic.
Consider the phrase "we need to be cautious about vaccinations." That's true. Everyone agrees that that's true. The medical system is set up to be cautious about vaccinations.
You can say it without being an anti-vaxxer at all, and support the current vaccination scheme.
But an anti-vaxxer will say that we need to be cautious well beyond what has been demonstrated to be a correct level of caution.
So, if someone makes that statement you CANNOT TELL if someone is an anti-vaxxer or not. You must look to the larger context.
Similarly, a non-racist can make the statement "that more blacks have a lower IQ can be seen as a lambasting of the system, and empathy towards the black community".
But so can a racist. A racist who accepts the decades of racially biased IQ testing might conclude that we need to treat blacks with special empathy the way that children or pets need empathy, and lambast the system of racial equality put into place by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as being unrealistic.
Thus, your interpretation cannot, by itself, be read as something that only non-racists would agree with.
Even if non-racists CAN and DO agree with it.
Looking at the larger context of Raymond's writings, he's a racist. Not an overt racist in the George Wallace mold, but clearly a racist along the lines of the pseudoscientific "scientific racism" which has long since been disproven.
You are being quite unfair to me. Just how serious was your earlier complaint about unfairness?
Even a basic understanding of US history shows that women were second-class citizens. They did not have the right to vote, were prohibited from many jobs, and often received lower wages even for equal or better work.
One of the justifications for the so-called "protection laws" for women comes from empathy. The belief was that women were not as intelligent and more frail than men, so needed special laws to protect them, their morals, and their ability to become mothers.
If empathy based on an incorrect perception of what women can and want to do could support the highly sexist laws of the 1800s, I see no reason why a similar sort of empathy based on the incorrect perception of what black people can and want to do could only be perceived as non-racist.
I have a special empathy towards babies. I think they must be treated different than how we treat adults. I don't think they should have the right to vote, or to carry arms. I think my views are based on a correct perception of their abilities.
If I were to apply that same empathy to black men, and infantilize them, then I would be racist, yes.
The implication here is that I'm racist. You then go on to explain that having an opinion that a racist would agree with is problematic.