Russ's essay makes a different point than "ho boy them blacks sure are lazy aye tell you wut". His essay makes the claims:

(1) Black are lazier than whites if by lazy we mean that they appear to work less hard than whites. This same definition would imply that whites (at least in the areas of Texas I'm familiar with) are lazier than latinos.

(2) For historical reasons, their culture values leisure time more.

(3) For historical reasons, they are paid less for the same unit of work than whites.

(4) Because of (2) and (3), there is no incentive for them to work harder than they currently do.

The meat of the position is halfway through the first paragraph:

> I think that is what led people into the mistaken idea that blacks are lazy--as a characteristic of being black. They're not; it's an economically-ignorant idea to say that they are. They're just rationally valuing their leisure time at the same rate as whites, getting paid less for the same work, and deciding to work less because of it.

Now, we can all disagree with the various premises of his reasoning. I disagree with the general observation in (1). I think many people could disagree with (2) and (3) depending on what facts they'd like to present. (4) does make sense if you agree with (2) and (3) and provides an economic reason for (1).

I don't find the essay correct, but I also don't find it particularly racist in the perjorative sense. It is limited in scope to the population of African-Americans descended from slavery, but then we'd consider a study on Irish-Americans and rates of abortion racist as well.

I disagree that people should've been calling for his dismissal over what amounts to armchair sociology and anthropology; I believe that we shouldn't tar-and-feather people when we could do better by debating them politely (as we are here).

> And who exactly was being "anti-intellectual", and using "violence" to "suppress his opposing viewpoints" and force him to resign, as you claim?

This is misquoting what I said. For reference:

> but with a lot of people, especially of intellectual background, it is closer to its original term of derision towards anti-intellectuals and folks who would use violence to suppress opposing viewpoints.

I was talking about the general case, not the constructed defense of Russ against violence you seem to be trying to trip me up on. My observation is that among essayists with a particular background when they write thug it is shorthand for "jack-booted thug" not "thug lyfe". It is used to invoke the image of being suppressed for badthink by folks summoning the morally outraged, as we saw in the '30s and '50s.

~

The Bruce Perens thing I have no comment on without more background information, other than to say "Goddamnit ESR".

~

The dogwhistle thing I keep a similarly moderate position on: I believe that there are absolutely phrases that can be used to signal to different portions of an audience. I think to claim otherwise shows a lack of creativity at best and a willful ignorance of public speaking at worst.

That said, it is rhetorically terribly convenient to be able to claim your opponent is using coded signals during a discussion which sympathizers don't recognize (because they're good upstanding folks) and which are of course being used for nefarious purposes.

I have seen people getting increasingly eager to throw out "dog whistle" (and "virtue signal" and "false flag" and all kinds of other rubbish) these days at the slightest provocation instead of actually countering the arguments themselves.

It is lazy, it is sloppy, and it makes sound positions ("Hey, discrimination based on ethnicity is wrong") look like they're too weak to defend conventionally.