Granting that nobody has an obligation to be politically correct in their behavior, and granting (for the sake of argument) all of Derbyshire's premises, what he's still saying is that the risks are so great that it's better simply to wall oneself off from African-Americans to the greatest degree possible. But he hasn't actually measured the risks in absolute terms, only in relative terms: would this action reduce risk; if yes, then follow it. I wonder: does he take a similar attitude toward other risks? Toward, to take a few examples, eating raw food, bicycling without a helmet, traveling alone to a foreign country, or writing whatever one wishes for a publication like Taki's Magazine?I live in Brooklyn. I love living in Brooklyn. Do I live in a majority-black neighborhood? No. But there's a large, majority black neighborhood right across the park from me. We share the park. Derbyshire's advice to me and to my son is, effectively: don't go to the park. Or, alternatively, don't live in Brooklyn. But why? Does Derbyshire know what the crime statistics are like in my part of Brooklyn these days? Is he really that fearful? The "race realists" like to say that they are the ones who are curious about the world, and the "politically correct" types are the ones who prefer to ignore ugly reality.But the advice Derbyshire gives to his children encourages them not to be too curious about the world around them, for fear of getting hurt. And, as a general rule, that's terrible advice for kids - and not the advice that Derbyshire has followed in his own life.
'A Recipe for Losing Touch With One's Own Editorial Faculties'
A response to John Derbyshire