I don't think any amount of comically exaggerated scorn is enough for this premise of Murray's—this single frail thread of what they think of as their "mathematically logical" case why human equality is hogwash. They loathe every single possible human abstraction of an intangible nature—feelings and emotions, intelligence and thinking, creativity, virtue, morality, all of it. They think they have something better, #statistics. THIS is what tells them who people are and what they will always do, forget all that talk about ethics or principles.

To go back to my synthetic example: 34% more "Black" persons buy product X than the "working class", therefore in #marketing logic, and the logic of every single racıst in the #technology sector, therefore a Black person will always buy product X! Product X is the "Black product" in marketing-speak. Charles Murray literally believes that you can tell who's "working class" because they buy certain products and shop at certain chains and all that.

It's absurd, but it's necessary to support the capitalist fixation on "efficiency" (i.e. mere profit-seeking over all other concerns, John Carmack-style 'efficiency').

(cont'd)

They're really working backwards, starting from the conclusion. The true motivation is stinginess: by compartmentalizing all industry and manufacturing and entertainment and everything else produced (ineptly) by #capitalism into racıst and bıgoted marketing categories, they're streamlining production. There's "normal people" (i.e. people of "Western" extraction with lots of money, the people whose purchasing decisions actually matter the most) whose numbers are small and therefore get the lion's share of attention from corporations: if you want to individualize production in any way rather than making one shitty all-purpose thing, the smart thing to do is keep the market limited.

#Apple works on this principle, which TSLA and everyone else in technology now copies. You can squeeze the absolute maximum profit-markup out of the rubes by targeting only those with lots of money and teaching that small limited market to feel specially treated.

(cont'd)

OOPS I totally broke my thread through inattention. Sorry!

But in order for this model to work, everyone outside the "normal people" market (i.e. the rich people market) has to get the short end. So they get the shittiest, most defective and poisonous and environmentally damaging products which #capitalism dares to extrude. The relative poverty of this non-elite market is constantly used in corporate propaganda to justify making faulty and hazardous junk (cf. #LLMs and "generative #AI") on the excuse that they're "passing the savings down to the consumer", or "helping the working class". You know, like Walmart does.

And about that "working class"—that of course is a racıst marketing category standing in for "whıte people". Because "whıte" doesn't really have a stable definition—plenty of melanin-deficient human beings have been labelled as "whıte" one moment and non-whıte the next, "whıte" doesn't really refer to color in this context—"working class" has come to be a handy euphemistic disguise, one that subtly dangles the absurd implication that nobody in any other lesser marketing category, e.g. Black persons or women, is "working class". Marketing categories are, to use the terminology of set #mathematics, disjoint.

(cont'd)

And incidentally, I have just furnished an example of why U.S. reactionaries after the Second Great War picked up on the Nazı line of condemning "Jewish mathematics", i.e. higher #mathematics. Set theory is relatively new to math and it's a now a vital component of numerous mathematical proofs. But U.S. bıgots, most especially the #Christians, have their own notions about who gets to belong to certain sets vs. others. Such is the rigidity and absurdity of bıgoted Christian ratiocination that it literally conflicts with mathematical relationships—and thus, after the War, racıst Christians successfully whipped up a campaign to destroy U.S. math teaching and banish "Jewish mathematics" (not under that name of course) as mere irrelevant and confusing nonsense that no patriotic hard-working American would ever NEED to know in their lives.

And of course they said it would confuse the children, with the same infantile fear they express about children seeing two men kissing or something. That habit of demanding absolutist social prohibitions for the purported safeguarding of #children is pertinent to an important concept in sociology, paternalism, i.e. leading societies in the manner of a stern father ordering his children about.

(cont'd)