Responding to the “Race Realist” Challenge

Responding to the “Race Realist” Challenge October 5, 2019

As my regular readers will know, I have issued a challenge to a regular “race realist” who has been frequently posting about the IQ differences between blacks and whites and the subsequent (and independent) criminal behaviour differences between these two groups of people. I will put aside the idea that races even exist – this is something that has not actually been established by the commenter. I will even grant him his claims that there are discernible differences after completely controlling for all other variables that mean that there are IQ and criminal behaviour differences between blacks and whites. Even granting this exceptionally generous conclusion, here is a challenge that I offered to him, as follows:

The Challenge

If Otto is attacking blacks on account of being more violent (due to some kind of genetic determinant), such that when controlling for all other variables, then whatever action he wants taken on account of this must be taken to a much greater degree against men. If he wants to disallow immigration from/lock them up/shoot them/generally pour scorn on them, then he must start doing this to all men. From now. That’s, you know, logical.

In other words, since he will not do this, or since it will lead to ridiculous and no doubt sexist conclusions, he doesn’t have a leg to stand on.

Either he deals with this point by destroying the data on male violence, or he accepts it and changes his tack to not only include men in his consistent comments and attacks but to start seeing them as the far greater problem. Every comment would now need to state something like:

High crime in the US correlates to blacks men, because they commit crimes at a much higher rate than other races biological sexes.

Perhaps we can make a feminist of Otto?

If he does not deal with at least this point in substantial robustness, I will simply delete all further invocations of his agenda.

I also want to repeat the question directly to him: Anyway, what do you want to do with the information (even if we accepted your claims)?

He has started peddling these claims again, hence the reposting here. You can see the original comment thread here. He has to the end of the week to rebut the challenge or his latest comments will be deleted.

I was genuinely expecting to have quite a robust debate concerning this challenge and his defence thereof. However, I was essentially provided with some vacuous twaddle at best. Here is a selection of his comments when they were finally pertinent to the challenge and not simply a case of defending the original claims about IQ and criminality:

Your analogy is not logical. Just because men are more criminal than women it does not logically follow that some men being far more criminal than other men is not significant. No one attributes more men being imprisoned to sexism. Liberals falsely attribute more blacks being imprisoned to racism, then demand less policing, and want to put fewer criminals in jail. You never object to that, either. You happily accept race being invoked when it’s in the service of a lie, only true racial observations upset you.

In the reply you quoted I observed the real world consequences of the denial you people engage in. Your analogy is no consolation for the families of those murder victims.


Outcomes you attribute to “racism” largely go away after controlling for IQ. I say “largely” because whites are not as violent as blacks of the same intelligence.

Your analogy is specious. Men are more likely to be terrorists than women. Should I be as concerned about travelers from Japan and Switzerland as I am about men from the Middle East?


Crime should be dealt with by incarceration and more aggressive policing, two things liberals object to as being “racist”. Sensible education policy that recognized race gaps can’t be closed would reduce wasteful spending, and you wouldn’t see idiocy like New York City wanting to eliminate gifted programs because they lack “diversity”.


You say you’ve read my comments, obviously that was another lie. Blacks are “disproportionately dealt with by police” because they commit crimes at a higher rate than other races. Men are “disproportionately dealt with by police”, is that because of sexism?

“Then you appear to be saying we shouldn’t bother to educate blacks as well as whites”

No, I said we shouldn’t waste time and money on futile attempts to close race gaps, and that we shouldn’t eliminate gifted programs because they aren’t “diverse”.

Okay, so let’s unpick these claims and comments. Essentially, this boils down to:

  1. My analogy of comparing whites to blacks as women to men is false.
  2. (There is also no dealing with the Asian vs whites issue mentioned earlier in the original piece)
  3. Crime should be dealt with by incarceration and more aggressive policing.
  4. Sensible education policy that recognized race gaps can’t be closed would reduce wasteful spending – trying to close attainment gaps, for example.

1) The analogy.

I really can’t help him here because the analogy stands. He is talking about two groups of humans whom he sees as having distinct genetic make-up that exclusively causes a difference in behaviour. My claim is that there are two other groups of humans that can be differentiated by genetic make up that causes a difference in behaviour (and, actually, it doesn’t matter for the purposes of this argument as to whether it is female/male genetics that causes a difference in criminality, or the social structures that have been born out of that difference in genetic make up).

This claim is worth dwelling on: “Just because men are more criminal than women it does not logically follow that some men being far more criminal than other men is not significant.” Of course, the same can be said of behaviour within black communities or amongst blacks. His logic: Just because blacks are more criminal than whites it does not logically follow that some blacks being far more criminal than other blacks is not significant. Of course it is significant because this will be driven by social factors that we are in a much better position to control. This does not invalidate the analogy at all.

The claim that “Liberals falsely attribute more blacks being imprisoned to racism” is simply false given the huge amounts of literature and evidence supporting structural racism in particularly the United States. There is a lot of research to suggest that black people are far more likely to get a longer sentence for exactly the same crime as equivalent white people. That alone should tell you something. You could start here, in looking at some of these ideas and research:

Of course, these disparities in prison populations between ethnic groups would have to correlate exactly on a one-to-one basis with the causal genetic differentials between said groups for Otto’s point to have any traction at all. The problem is, when we control the variables, this is simply not the case. The gap is massively higher than anything Otto and people like him can try to argue for in terms of genetics.

The Washington Post talks about how black prisoner numbers are down, but the problems still persist:

Bad news about race and criminal justice is all around us. Relative to white people, black people receive longer sentences for the same crimes, are treated more disrespectfully by police in routine interactions and are more likely to be shot by police during confrontations. And of course, black people are overrepresented in the nation’s incarcerated population. So pervasive and long-standing are these problems — especially mass incarceration — that they dominate the broader narrative about law enforcement and race in the United States.

The analogy maintains and Otto has no comeback to the challenge, here.

2) Asians.

Otto freely admits from the research that he cites that Asians have greater IQ than white people and all the ramifications that this might bring in terms of behaviour. What he fails to admit is that his biases against black people in relation to white people should be applied to white people in relation to Asian people.

However, he conveniently forgets to address this problem.

What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

3) Crime, aggressive policing and incarceration.

I have largely dealt with this above. The problem is that blacks already receive aggressive policing that is fine away above any causal genetic differential that could possibly be established between blacks and whites. What Otto is suggesting is that we take this overly aggressive policing and overly aggressive incarceration as applied to black people and make it worse. That we should make an already horrendous situation far worse than it is. Exactly what does he think will happen to social cohesion in the United States? Do you think this would lead to less criminality and greater cohesion between ethnic groups? This is such a ridiculous claim that it warrants no further discussion.

4) We shouldn’t waste money on closing attainment gaps etc.

I am not sure how much money, in the scheme of things, Otto thinks is spent exclusively on black people in terms of trying to close an attainment gap in education. He would have to differentiate money spent to close an attainment gap that might exist as a result of purely social pressures as opposed to an attainment gap that arises solely out of genetic differences. Remember, his case is built solely and entirely upon genetic differences. Of course, with his simple throwaway sentence and a claim that he has established his resultant policy positions many times (except that he hasn’t), Otto singularly fails to make any substantive claim that is based in any kind of data-driven or, indeed, logical reality.


The response from Otto was so wildly underwhelming, so utterly and completely poor, was so terribly bereft of substance and robustness that I can’t believe I have devoted even this amount of time to them. He has simply failed to deal with the challenge in any meaningful way whatsoever. And will try and establish his core claims about racial differences but I can’t see him being able to overcome the analogy challenge I have provided. He has so far been unable to do it and I don’t hold out much hope for the future.

As a result, I will now of his race claims that he makes on these threads and forums here at A Tippling Philosopher. He is welcome to try and re-establish his case below, but I don’t hold out any hope to him. Simply put, he has failed the challenge and my fellow moderator and I will carry out the consequences.

Stay in touch! Like A Tippling Philosopher on Facebook:

Browse Our Archives